[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 22, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21559-21577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8677]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018; FRL-8556-3]
RIN 2060-AO41


New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing Plants; and Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the Standards of Performance 
for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant(s) (NMPP). These proposed 
amendments include proposed revisions to the emission limits for NMPP 
affected facilities which commence construction, modification, or 
reconstruction after today's date (referred to as ``future'' affected 
facilities in this preamble). These proposed amendments for NMPP also 
include additional testing and monitoring requirements for future 
affected facilities; exemption of affected facilities that process wet 
material from this proposed rule; changes to simplify the notification 
requirements for all affected facilities; and changes to definitions 
and various clarifications. EPA is also proposing an amendment to the 
Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries 
to address applicability of this proposed rule to thermal sand 
reclamation processes at metal foundries.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2008, unless a 
public hearing is requested by May 2, 2008. If a hearing is requested 
on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by June 6, 
2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) on or before May 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-1018, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), New Source Performance Standards for Nonmetallic 
Mineral Processing Plants Docket, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), New Source Performance Standards for 
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1018. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants 
Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is

[[Page 21560]]

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Neuffer, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5435; fax 
number: (919) 541-3207; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information presented in 
this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information on Subpart OOO
    A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments 
to subpart OOO?
    B. What are the current NMPP NSPS?
III. Summary of these Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO
IV. Rationale for These Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO
    A. How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future 
affected facilities?
    B. How is EPA proposing to amend subpart OOO applicability and 
definitions?
    C. How is EPA proposing to amend the testing requirements?
    D. How is EPA proposing to amend the monitoring requirements?
    E. How is EPA proposing to amend the notification, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements?
V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions
VI. Clarifications on Subpart OOO
VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
These Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO
    A. What are the impacts for NMPP?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
VIII. Proposed Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by these proposed 
amendments include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS code\1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  212311...........  Dimension Stone
                                                    Mining and
                                                    Quarrying.
                                212312...........  Crushed and Broken
                                                    Limestone Mining and
                                                    Quarrying.
                                212313...........  Crushed and Broken
                                                    Granite Mining and
                                                    Quarrying.
                                212319...........  Other Crushed and
                                                    Broken Stone Mining
                                                    and Quarrying.
                                212321...........  Construction Sand and
                                                    Gravel Mining.
                                212322...........  Industrial Sand
                                                    Mining.
                                212324...........  Kaolin and Ball Clay
                                                    Mining.
                                212325...........  Clay and Ceramic and
                                                    Refractory Minerals
                                                    Mining.
                                212391...........  Potash, Soda, and
                                                    Borate Mineral
                                                    Mining.
                                212393...........  Other Chemical and
                                                    Fertilizer Mineral
                                                    Mining.
                                212399...........  All Other Nonmetallic
                                                    Mineral Mining.
                                221112...........  Fossil-Fuel Electric
                                                    Power Generation.
                                324121...........  Asphalt Paving
                                                    Mixture and Block
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                327121...........  Brick and Structural
                                                    Clay Tile
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                327122...........  Ceramic Wall and
                                                    Floor Tile
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                327123...........  Other Structural Clay
                                                    Product
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                327124...........  Clay Refractory
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                327310...........  Cement Manufacturing.
                                327410...........  Lime Manufacturing
                                                    (Dolomite, Dead-
                                                    burned,
                                                    Manufacturing).
                                327420...........  Gypsum Product
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                327992...........  Ground or Treated
                                                    Mineral and Earth
                                                    Manufacturing.
                                331111...........  Steel Mills.
                                331511-513,        Various metal
                                 331521-522,        foundries (e.g.,
                                 331524-525, and    iron, steel,
                                 331528.            aluminum, and
                                                    copper)
Federal government............  .................  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.  .................  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.670 
(subpart OOO) or 40 CFR 60.730 (subpart UUU). If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular 
entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018. Clearly mark the 
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one

[[Page 21561]]

complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by 
May 2, 2008, a public hearing will be held on May 7, 2008. Persons 
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 
public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Bill Neuffer, listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least 2 days in advance 
of the hearing.

II. Background Information on Subpart OOO

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments to 
subpart OOO?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which 
cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The 
primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain ambient air 
quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control 
technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is 
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving 
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified 
sources.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions which (taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated 
technology (BDT).
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review 
and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect 
improvements in methods for reducing emissions.

B. What are the current NMPP NSPS?

    Standards of performance for NMPP (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO) 
were promulgated in the Federal Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR 
31328). The first review of the NMPP NSPS was completed on June 9, 1997 
(62 FR 31351).
    The NMPP NSPS applies to new, modified, and reconstructed affected 
facilities at plants that process any of the following 18 nonmetallic 
minerals: crushed and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay, rock salt, 
gypsum, sodium compounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite, 
boron, barite, fluorospar, feldspar, diatomite, perlite, vermiculite, 
mica, and kyanite. The affected facilities are each crusher, grinding 
mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging 
operation, storage bin, and enclosed truck or railcar loading station. 
Unless otherwise noted, the terms ``new'' or ``future'' as used in this 
preamble include modified or reconstructed units.

III. Summary of These Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO

    The proposed amendments to subpart OOO of 40 CFR part 60 are 
summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.

                                 Table 1.--Summary of These Proposed Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation                      Change
-------------------------------------------------------
60.670(a  Exempt wet material processing operations;
  )(2)     clarify rule does not apply to plants with
           no crushers or grinding mills.
60.670(d  Revise to clarify that like-for-like
  )(1)     replacements that have no emissions increase
           are exempt from certain provisions.
60.670(f  Revise to conform with amended Table 1 to
     )     subpart OOO.
60.671    Add definitions of: Crush or crushing,
           saturated material, seasonal shut down, and
           wet material processing operations. Amend
           definition of ``screening operation'' to
           exempt static grizzlies.
60.672(a  Revise to reference Tables 2 and 3 to subpart
 ) and     OOO and to better match General Provisions
   (b)     language regarding compliance dates. Tables
           2 and 3 to subpart OOO contain revised
           emission limits and testing/monitoring
           requirements for future affected facilities.
60.672(c  Reserve because superseded by Table 3 to
     )     subpart OOO.
60.672(e  Revise cross-references. Replace Method 22
     )     (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) no visible
           emissions limit for building openings with 7
           percent fugitive opacity limit.
60.672(f  Consolidate paragraphs to refer to Table 2 to
 ) and     subpart OOO. Specify exemption from stack PM
   (g)     concentration limit and that 7 percent
           opacity limit applies for future individual
           enclosed storage bins.
60.672(h  Remove 60.672(h) and reserve 60.675(h)
 ) and     because wet material processing exempted.
 60.675(
    h)
60.674    Renumber (a) and (b) as (a)(1) and (2). Add
           periodic inspections for future wet
           suppression systems and future baghouse
           monitoring requirements (Method 22 visible
           emission inspections or use of bag leak
           detection systems).
60.675    Add text to clarify that the required EPA
   and     test methods are located in Appendices A-1
 various   through A-7 of 40 CFR part 60 (formerly
 other     Appendix A of 60 CFR part 60).
 section
     s
 referen
  cing
  test
 methods
60.675(b  Cross reference exceptions to Method 5 (40
  )(1)     CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) or Method 17 (40
           CFR part 60, Appendix A-6).
60.675(c  Correct cross reference to amended paragraph
     )     in (c)(1).
          Expand (c)(2) into subparagraphs (i) and (ii)
           to reduce the duration of Method 9 (40 CFR
           part 60, Appendix A-4) stack opacity
           observations for storage bins or enclosed
           truck or railcar loading stations operating
           for less than 1 hour at a time.

[[Page 21562]]

 
          Revise (c)(3) and delete (c)(4) to make the
           fugitive Method 9 testing duration 30
           minutes and specify averaging time for all
           affected facilities.
60.675(d  Specify performance testing requirements for
     )     the building fugitive emission limit. Allow
           prior Method 22 tests showing compliance
           with the former no VE limit.
60.675(e  Add paragraph (e)(2) to allow Method 9
     )     readings to be conducted on three emission
           points at one time if specified criteria are
           met.
          Add paragraph (e)(3) to allow Method 5I (40
           CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) as an option for
           determining PM concentration from affected
           facilities that operate for less than 1 hour
           at a time.
          Add paragraph (e)(4) to address flow
           measurement from building vents with low
           exhaust gas velocity.
60.675(f  Correct cross references.
     )
60.675(g  Revise to reduce 30-day advance notification
     )     time for Method 9 fugitive performance test
           to 7 days.
60.675(i  Add section to state that initial performance
     )     test dates that fall during seasonal shut
           downs may be postponed no later than 60 days
           after resuming operation (with permitting
           authority approval).
60.676(b  Add requirement to previously reserved
     )     paragraph (b) for recording periodic
           inspections of water sprays and baghouse
           monitoring for future affected facilities.
60.676(d  Remove reference to upper limits on scrubber
     )     pressure and liquid flow rate.
60.676(f  Edit to conform to wet material processing
 ) and     exemption and/or relevant opacity limits.
   (g)
60.676(h  Delete reference to now reserved 60.7(a)(2).
     )     Waive requirement to submit 60.7(a)(1)
           notification of the date construction or
           reconstruction commenced.
60.676(k  Add section to state that notifications and
     )     reports need only be sent to the delegated
           authority (or the EPA Region when there is
           no delegated authority).
Table 1   Move to end of subpart OOO, shorten to
    to     include only exceptions to the General
 subpart   Provisions, and update comments.
   OOO
Table 2   Add table to specify the stack PM limits and
    to     testing/monitoring requirements for current
 subpart   and future affected facilities.
   OOO
Table 3   Add table to specify the fugitive opacity
    to     limits and testing/monitoring requirements
 subpart   for current and future affected facilities.
   OOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rationale for These Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO

A. How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future 
affected facilities?

    For ``future'' affected facilities constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after today's date, we are proposing:
     To reduce the PM emission limits from 0.05 grams per dry 
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic foot 
(gr/dscf)) to 0.02 g/dscm (0.014 gr/dscf) for affected facilities with 
capture systems (i.e., affected facilities that vent through stacks), 
and to eliminate the stack opacity limit for dry control devices; and
     To reduce the fugitive visible emission limits from 15 
percent to 12 percent for crushers, and from 10 percent to 7 percent 
for grinding mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, belt 
conveyors, bagging operations, storage bins, and enclosed truck or 
railcar loading stations.

The emission limits for affected facilities constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed before today's date remain unchanged.
    The 1985 promulgated NMPP NSPS are based on emission levels 
achieved using baghouse control or wet dust suppression techniques (see 
50 FR 31329, August 1, 1985). Both systems were determined to be BDT 
for reasons discussed in the preamble to the 1983 proposed rule (see 48 
FR 339569-39571, August 31, 1983). It was also noted in the 1983 
proposal preamble that certain wet scrubbers could perform comparably 
to BDT. As part of our review of subpart OOO, we collected information 
through site visits, trade associations, and state agencies. The 
information and comments these stakeholders provided us on the current 
NSPS are contained in the docket. We reviewed numerous NMPP permits to 
identify emissions limits more stringent than subpart OOO (and to 
understand if limits more stringent than subpart OOO are commonplace or 
rare) and emissions test data from a number of sources (trade 
associations and state agencies). A summary of state permits and 
emissions test data are in the docket. Our review of permits and other 
available information in the record did not reveal any new or emerging 
pollution prevention measures or particulate matter (PM) control 
technologies in the non-metallic minerals industries for consideration 
as BDT. Consistent with the prior BDT determination, the vast majority 
of subpart OOO affected facilities subject to stack emission limits 
have baghouse controls. A number of wet scrubber controls were observed 
as well. The subpart OOO fugitive emission limits are most commonly met 
through use of wet suppression (as needed), water carryover, or with a 
partial enclosure. Wet dust suppression remains the method of choice 
for the vast majority of crushed stone and sand & gravel facilities. 
These BDT control systems achieve a reduction in PM10 and 
PM2.5 along with reduction in larger PM particle sizes.
    The stack emissions data we reviewed included over 300 PM stack 
tests from 1990 and later for a variety of subpart OOO affected 
facilities and industries. A memorandum summarizing this test data is 
in the docket. Ninety-one percent of the PM stack test results achieved 
0.014 gr/dscf. Consistent with our prior BDT determination, the control 
technologies used for the affected facilities tested included primarily 
baghouses and wet scrubbers designed to meet subpart OOO. The high 
percentage of affected facilities currently able to meet 0.014 gr/dscf 
using either baghouses or wet scrubbers supports our conclusion that an 
emission limit of 0.014 gr/dscf can be achieved by well-maintained and 
operated control systems. Further, the available information suggests 
that establishing emission limits below 0.014 gr/dscf would result in a 
level of control that may be difficult for some NMPP control systems to 
achieve on a continuous basis.
    Some test results were above the limits under consideration but 
below the current NSPS limit of 0.022 gr/dscf. These units were 
considered as having marginal performance. The effect of reducing the 
stack PM limit would be to

[[Page 21563]]

ensure that the typical performance of BDT control systems today is 
achieved for future affected facilities and that controls with marginal 
performance are not installed in the future.
    Using the available information, we considered the incremental 
costs and emissions reductions for different levels of control to 
determine the appropriate stack emission limit representative of BDT 
for new, modified, and reconstructed affected facilities. The control 
systems that would be installed to meet the proposed limit of 0.014 
would be the same as those installed to meet the current NSPS limit of 
0.022 gr/dscf. Because there would be no change in control technology, 
we expect that the incremental costs would be very low or zero. 
However, limits below 0.014 gr/dscf may result in additional cost with 
little incremental emission reduction beyond that achieved by reducing 
the current limit (0.022 gr/dscf) to 0.014 gr/dscf. Therefore, we are 
proposing a PM limit of 0.014 gr/dscf as BDT for new, modified, and 
reconstructed affected facilities.
    The purpose of the current 7 percent stack opacity limit in subpart 
OOO is to provide inspectors and plant personnel a measure of ongoing 
compliance for dry control devices (namely baghouses). We are proposing 
to replace the 7 percent stack opacity limit with quarterly monitoring 
of baghouses for future affected facilities. The monitoring 
requirements for baghouses would occur at specified intervals (as 
discussed below) and ensure proper operation and maintenance of future 
baghouses on an ongoing basis. Therefore, a stack opacity limit would 
no longer be needed for future affected facilities.
    With respect to fugitive emissions, we looked at over 700 fugitive 
emissions test data points (maximum 6-minute opacity averages) for a 
variety of subpart OOO affected facilities and industries that do not 
vent through stacks. A memorandum summarizing this test data is in the 
docket. These data revealed that the vast majority of affected 
facilities perform better than the current fugitive emission limits of 
15 percent opacity for crushers and 10 percent opacity for other 
affected facilities. For crushers, 93 percent of the data points were 
at or below 12 percent opacity. Ninety-five percent of the data points 
for other types of affected facilities were at or below 7 percent 
opacity. Therefore, we are proposing revised fugitive emissions limits 
of 12 percent for crushers and 7 percent for all other affected 
facilities, which can be met by future affected facilities employing 
the same control measures as are used on today's affected facilities 
(e.g., wet suppression, water carryover, and/or partial enclosures). 
The emission reduction associated with lowering the fugitive opacity 
limit is not quantifiable based on available information. Because the 
same control measures needed to meet the current NSPS would be employed 
to meet the revised NSPS, there would be no incremental cost associated 
with this proposed reduction in the fugitive opacity limits. The effect 
of lowering the opacity limits would be to ensure that any wet 
suppression or enclosure systems with marginal performance (compared to 
the current NSPS) would no longer be acceptable for future affected 
facilities.
    Given the addition of revised limits to subpart OOO for affected 
facilities installed after today's date, we are proposing to revise 
Sec.  60.672 to include two tables that present the subpart OOO 
emission limits. The proposed Table 2 to subpart OOO would present the 
stack emission limits for affected facilities with capture systems. 
Capture systems are defined in subpart OOO as equipment (e.g., 
enclosures, ducts, etc.) used to capture and transport PM emissions to 
a control device. The proposed Table 3 to subpart OOO would present the 
fugitive emission limits for affected facilities without capture 
systems (i.e., affected facilities that do not vent through stacks). We 
request comment on whether these tables improve the readability of 
subpart OOO and help to distinguish between the stack and fugitive 
emission limits.
    Aside from the tables proposed to be added to subpart OOO, 
exemptions from selected emission limits would remain in the text of 
Sec.  60.672. A footnote to the proposed Table 2 would direct readers 
to Sec.  60.672 to review these exemptions. We are proposing to combine 
and revise former Sec.  60.672 paragraphs (f) and (g) into one 
paragraph Sec.  60.672(f) to clarify applicability of the PM emission 
limits to storage bins. Baghouses controlling individual enclosed 
storage bins are exempt from the stack PM concentration limit (but must 
meet the 7 percent stack opacity limit). However, baghouses controlling 
multiple storage bins are required to meet both the stack PM and 
opacity limits. We are retaining the 7 percent stack opacity limit for 
future baghouses controlling individual enclosed storage bins. In 
addition, we are also proposing to clarify in a footnote to Table 2 
that the subpart OOO opacity limits do not apply for affected 
facilities controlled by wet scrubbers. Wet scrubbers are required to 
monitor scrubber pressure loss and scrubber liquid flow rate instead of 
opacity. Therefore, no initial opacity test is required by subpart OOO 
for wet scrubbers.

B. How is EPA proposing to amend subpart OOO applicability and 
definitions?

    Wet material processing. We are proposing to add two definitions 
and to make other changes to exempt from subpart OOO wet material 
processing operations that have no potential for PM emissions. These 
types of operations were already exempted from the testing requirements 
of subpart OOO but remained subject to notification requirements and a 
no visible emissions (VE) limit (although no testing was required to 
demonstrate compliance with the no VE limit). Exempting wet material 
processing operations from this proposed rule altogether will reduce 
the burden associated with notifications and tracking of these 
operations as subpart OOO affected facilities with no requirements. We 
are proposing to define ``wet material processing operations'' 
similarly to how they were referred to before in subpart OOO. Wet 
material processing operations include: (a) Wet screening operations 
and subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators and belt 
conveyors in the production line that process saturated materials up to 
the first crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in the production line; 
or (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. Stakeholders have expressed concern that 
the term ``saturated'' is ambiguous and requested that we define that 
term. Therefore, we are also proposing to add a definition of 
``saturated material'' to subpart OOO to describe the type of material 
intended to be exempted from this proposed rule. Through the 
definitions of ``wet material processing operation'' and ``saturated 
material'' (as well as other existing definitions of ``wet mining 
operation'' and ``wet screening operation''), we intend to exempt from 
coverage under subpart OOO mineral material that is wet enough on its 
surface to remove the possibility of PM emissions being generated from 
processing of the material though screening operations, bucket 
elevators and belt conveyors. Material that is wetted solely by wet 
suppression systems designed to add surface moisture for dust control 
is not considered to be ``saturated material'' for purposes of this 
exemption. Examples of saturated material include slurries of water and 
mineral material, material that is wet as it enters the

[[Page 21564]]

processing plant from the mine, material that is wet from washing, 
material with a high percentage of moisture (considering mineral type), 
etc. This exemption for wet material processing operations is limited 
to screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors (i.e., 
belt conveyor transfer points) because crushing or grinding of mineral 
material can expose new dry surfaces that pose a potential for PM 
emissions and other affected facilities (bagging operations, storage 
bins, and enclosed truck or railcar loading stations) usually process 
only dry material.
    Crushers. Industry representatives requested that we clarify the 
meaning of ``crusher'' and ``grinding mill'' by adding a definition of 
``crushing.'' The new definition of ``crushing'' would help to clarify 
that crushers and grinding mills do not include equipment that simply 
breaks up clumps of material (e.g., certain deagglomerators or 
shredders processing material that has become stuck together during 
processing) but does not further reduce the size of the material. The 
current definition of ``crusher'' employs the word ``crush'' and the 
current definition of grinding mill uses the word ``crushing.'' To 
capture both terms, we are proposing to add a new definition: ``Crush 
or crushing'' which means to reduce the size of nonmetallic mineral 
material by means of physical impaction of the crusher or grinding mill 
upon the material.
    Grizzlies. We are proposing to clarify that all grizzlies 
associated with truck dumping and static (non-agitating) grizzlies are 
not subpart OOO affected sources. Grizzlies can sometimes be confused 
with screening operations because they are used to separate larger 
material from smaller material. Grizzlies range from simple metal 
grates to equipment that agitates or vibrates material similarly to 
screening operations. Grizzlies are often associated with truck 
dumping, where a truck dumps material from the mine into the grizzly 
feeder. The grizzly feeder separates fines and smaller pieces of rock 
from larger material (e.g., boulders) that require initial crushing. 
Grizzly feeders associated with truck dumping are not subject to 
subpart OOO because Sec.  60.672(d) states that, ``Truck dumping of 
nonmetallic minerals into any screening operation, feed hopper, or 
crusher is exempt from the requirements of this section.'' However, 
applicability of subpart OOO to grizzlies used elsewhere in NMPP has 
been less clear. Certain types of grizzlies (specifically metal grate 
grizzlies that do not mechanically agitate or vibrate the mineral 
material) are clearly different from screening operations. Therefore, 
we are proposing to amend the definition of screening operation to 
state that ``Grizzly feeders associated with truck dumping and static 
(non-moving) grizzlies used anywhere in the nonmetallic mineral 
processing plant are not considered to be screening operations.''

C. How is EPA proposing to amend the testing requirements?

    Repeat testing for future affected facilities. Subpart OOO 
currently requires NMPP to conduct an initial performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the relevant stack or fugitive emission 
limits. Stack PM emissions are to be measured with EPA Method 5 (40 CFR 
part 60, Appendix A-3) or Method 17 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-6) and 
stack opacity must be measured with EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-4). The opacity from affected facilities not venting through 
stacks must be measured with EPA Method 9 (though the duration of 
Method 9 readings is reduced in some cases as discussed below). Repeat 
performance tests currently are not required by subpart OOO, but may be 
required by permitting authorities for some NMPP. As part of an ongoing 
effort to improve compliance with various Federal air emission 
regulations, we are proposing to require repeat performance testing 
once every 5 years for future subpart OOO affected facilities that do 
not have ongoing monitoring requirements. Specifically, a repeat Method 
9 test is proposed to be required for future affected facility fugitive 
emissions controlled by water carryover or other means. Repeat Method 9 
tests are not being proposed for fugitive affected facilities with wet 
suppression water sprays because, (as discussed below) periodic 
inspections of the water spray nozzles are being proposed for these 
emission points.
    The proposed repeat testing requirements appear in the proposed 
Table 3 to subpart OOO. We considered annual repeat testing and repeat 
testing every 5 years for stacks, but concluded that this would be 
overly burdensome given the number of affected facilities (including 
numerous small stacks) to be tested at NMPP. As discussed later, we are 
proposing ongoing monitoring requirements for future affected 
facilities that do not have repeat testing requirements to ensure that 
future control systems are properly operated and maintained over their 
useful life.
    Fugitive Method 9 test duration. Subpart OOO currently requires 
initial Method 9 observations for affected facilities with fugitive 
emissions. As currently written, the duration of the Method 9 
observations may be reduced from 3 hours to 1 hour if there are no 
individual readings greater than the applicable limit and if there are 
no more than three readings at the applicable limit during the 1-hour 
period. Stakeholders have expressed concern regarding the amount of 
time required to complete the initial Method 9 tests given the number 
of affected facilities at NMPP that require readings (e.g., numerous 
conveyor transfer points throughout the NMPP). The stakeholders also 
noted that in many cases the readings being recorded are all zeros. We 
have considered the Method 9 observation time in the context of the 
numerous fugitive affected facilities that require observations at NMPP 
and the other changes to testing requirements we are proposing today 
(i.e., addition of repeat testing requirements). We are proposing three 
amendments to the fugitive Method 9 testing provisions for all affected 
facilities to reduce the amount of time required for testing without 
sacrificing enforceability of the rule or air quality. First, we are 
removing the stipulations that could trigger a 3-hour test. Second, we 
are proposing to require a 30-minute fugitive Method 9 test duration 
(five 6-minute averages) for all affected facilities. Compliance with 
the applicable fugitive emissions limit would be based on the average 
of the five 6-minute averages recorded during the 30 minutes. Third, 
considering the number of affected facilities to be tested and the 
close proximity of some of these affected facilities to one another at 
NMPP plants, we are proposing to allow a single visible emission 
observer to conduct observations for up to three subpart OOO emission 
points at a time (including stack and vent emission points) provided 
that certain criteria are met (as proposed in Sec.  60.675(e)(2)).
    Storage bins and loading stations operating less than 1 hour at a 
time. Based on comments from stakeholders and our own review of 
emission test reports, we recognize that affected facilities such as 
storage bins (including silos) and loading stations may operate 
intermittently such that emissions testing for three 1 hour periods can 
be impractical in some instances. For example, storage bins may be 
filled for a time period of less than an hour and then filling stops 
for some time. Likewise, loading operations may operate for a short 
time and then cease operation. Some facilities have addressed these 
challenges during testing by filling and then emptying a

[[Page 21565]]

storage bin, only to re-route the same material back into the bin. To 
provide some relief from this situation, we are proposing to add EPA 
Method 5I (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3)--``Determination of Low Level 
Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources'' to subpart OOO 
as an optional test method that can be used instead of Methods 5 or 17. 
Method 5I is useful for low PM concentration applications, where the 
total PM catch is 50 milligrams or less. With Method 5I, the sample 
rate and total gas volume is adjusted based on the estimated grain 
loading of the emission point and the total sampling time is a function 
of the estimated mass of PM to be collected for the run. Thus, Method 
5I can be used in situations where the minimum sampling volume of 60 
dscf (required for Methods 5 and 17) cannot be obtained (e.g., for 
affected facilities that operate for less than 1 hour at a time). We 
are also proposing to reduce the Method 9 stack opacity test duration 
from 3 hours to the duration that the affected facility operates (but 
not less than 30 minutes) for baghouses that control storage bins or 
enclosed truck or railcar loading stations that operate for less than 1 
hour at a time.
    Buildings. Subpart OOO contains an optional compliance method for 
affected facilities inside of buildings. Rather than measuring the 
emissions from each affected facility within a building (which is 
sometimes difficult due to close equipment spacing and lighting), NMPP 
can opt to measure emissions from the building. Subpart OOO currently 
requires buildings to meet a zero VE limit (measured with EPA Method 
22), and additionally requires the building vents to meet the stack PM 
concentration and opacity limits. During the NSPS review, stakeholders 
requested changes to the optional emission limits and testing 
procedures for buildings. Some stakeholders pointed out that noise 
barriers are very similar to buildings in that they enclose affected 
facilities and reduce or prevent fugitive emissions. We agree. Subpart 
OOO defines ``building'' as ``any frame structure with a roof.'' 
According to the definition of building, noise barriers resembling 
buildings with a roof would be considered as buildings. Stakeholders 
also requested that buildings housing affected facilities be subject to 
the same emission limits as the affected facilities in the buildings. 
The stakeholders believe that, as written now, subpart OOO is more 
stringent for affected facilities inside of buildings than for those 
located outside. Last, stakeholders noted difficulties with performing 
Method 5 emissions testing on building vents because building vents 
often have no stacks and/or low gas flow rates that are insufficient to 
meet isokinetic measurement requirements.
    We have reviewed the current provisions relating to buildings and 
are proposing to apply a fugitive emission limit of 7 percent opacity 
(measured with EPA Method 9) at the inlet and outlet of buildings (or 
at other building openings except powered vents). Compliance with the 7 
percent opacity limit would be demonstrated through initial testing. A 
repeat opacity test would be required (within 5 years from the previous 
test) for buildings housing any future affected facility. Buildings 
that demonstrated compliance with the Method 22 no VE limit through 
performance testing would not be required to be retested to show 
compliance with today's proposed Method 9 opacity limit unless a future 
affected facility is installed in the building. The applicable stack 
emission limits and testing/monitoring requirements from the proposed 
Table 2 to subpart OOO would continue to apply to powered building 
vents. We are proposing to add Sec.  60.675(e) to provide an 
alternative procedure for determining building vent flow rate for 
building vents with flow too low to measure. We believe these changes 
will simplify the methodology used to demonstrate compliance with 
subpart OOO for buildings while ensuring that PM emissions from 
affected facilities remain adequately controlled.
    Seasonal shut downs. Stakeholders representing the construction 
aggregate (i.e., crushed stone and construction sand and gravel) sector 
indicated that the initial performance test dates sometimes fall during 
seasonal plant closures. Consistent with the NSPS General Provisions, 
initial performance tests are required 60 calendar days after achieving 
maximum production but no later than 180 calendar days after initial 
startup of an affected facility. The stakeholders noted that aggregate 
plants often cease production during winter months when demand for 
construction aggregate is low. The current initial performance test 
dates based on calendar days can fall during these periods of seasonal 
shut down. Therefore, we are proposing to add Sec.  60.675(j) to 
subpart OOO to allow plants to postpone initial performance testing 
until 60 calendar days after resuming operation following a seasonal 
shut down of an affected facility. Approval from the permitting 
authority would be required for postponing the initial compliance test 
(e.g., there should be some form of communication with the permitting 
authority to indicate the duration of the seasonal shut down of the 
affected facility) and to specify the revised deadline for the 
performance test. We consider a seasonal shut down to be at least 45 
consecutive days of shut down of the affected facility and are 
proposing a definition to that effect. We are limiting the proposed 
postponing of performance tests to initial performance tests because 
repeat performance tests can be scheduled at a time the NMPP chooses 
within 5 years of the prior performance test.

D. How is EPA proposing to amend the monitoring requirements?

    Monitoring for fugitive emissions limits. Fugitive emissions from 
subpart OOO affected facilities are often controlled by wet 
suppression. In wet suppression systems, water (and surfactant) is 
sprayed on nonmetallic minerals at various locations in the process 
line but not necessarily at every affected facility. Carryover of water 
sprayed at affected facilities upstream in the process line is often 
sufficient to control fugitive emissions from affected facilities 
downstream in the process. Partial enclosures or other means may also 
be used to reduce fugitive emissions in addition to water sprays or 
water carryover. We are proposing separate requirements to demonstrate 
ongoing compliance with the fugitive emission limits for future 
affected facilities where water is sprayed and for other future 
affected facilities (i.e., those controlled by water carryover or other 
means). As mentioned above, we are proposing a repeat Method 9 test 
(within 5 years from the previous performance test) for future affected 
facility fugitive emissions controlled by water carryover or other 
means. A repeat Method 9 test is not being proposed for fugitive 
affected facilities with water sprays. Instead we are proposing monthly 
periodic inspections of water sprays to ensure that water is flowing to 
the discharge water spray nozzles in the wet suppression system. If, 
during an inspection, you find that water is not flowing properly then 
you would be required to initiate corrective action within 24 hours. We 
are proposing the periodic inspections of water sprays as part of our 
ongoing effort to improve compliance with Federal air emission 
regulations such as subpart OOO. We believe that monthly inspections 
would ensure that subpart OOO wet suppression systems remain in good 
working order and provide the required control of fugitive emissions.
    Baghouse monitoring. As mentioned previously, we are replacing the 
7

[[Page 21566]]

percent stack opacity limit with ongoing monitoring for future 
baghouses. We believe the monitoring requirements of this proposed rule 
would be more effective in ensuring ongoing compliance with the PM 
limit than the current stack opacity limit (which has no associated 
repeat testing requirements) because this proposed monitoring would 
occur at regular intervals.
    We are proposing two options for monitoring of future baghouses: 
(1) Quarterly visible emissions inspections, or (2) use of a bag leak 
detection system. The quarterly visible emissions inspections would be 
conducted using EPA Method 22 for 30 minutes. The visible emissions 
inspections would be successful if no visible emissions are observed. 
If any visible emissions are observed, then you would be required to 
initiate corrective action within 24 hours to restore the baghouse to 
normal operation. We believe it is unlikely, but if your baghouse 
normally displays some visible emissions, then you would be allowed to 
establish a different baghouse-specific success level for the visible 
emissions inspections (other than no visible emissions) by conducting a 
PM test simultaneously with a Method 22 test to determine what 
constitutes normal visible emissions from your baghouse when it is in 
compliance with the subpart OOO PM concentration limit. The revised 
visible emissions success level must be incorporated into your permit.
    We are proposing to allow use of a bag leak detection system as an 
alternative to the periodic Method 22 visible emission inspections for 
baghouses controlling future affected facilities. The bag leak 
detection system must be installed and operated according to the 
proposed Sec.  60.674(d).
    Wet scrubber monitoring. Stakeholders requested that we remove the 
upper limits for wet scrubber operating parameters (pressure drop and 
liquid flow) referred to in Sec.  60.676(d). Increases in these 
parameters would only increase scrubber PM removal efficiency. 
Therefore, we are proposing to revise Sec.  60.676(d) to delete 
reference to scrubber pressure gain and the upper limit for scrubber 
liquid flow.
    We are not proposing any further changes to the wet scrubber 
monitoring requirements at this time. However, the Agency is drafting 
Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) and Procedure 4 for continuous 
parameter monitoring systems (which include pressure and liquid flow 
measurements). Following proposal and public comment of PS-17 and 
Procedure 4, the procedures and requirements in PS-17 and Procedure 4 
would supersede the wet scrubber monitoring language in subpart OOO for 
affected facilities with wet scrubbers installed after the proposal 
date of PS-17 and Procedure 4.

E. How is EPA proposing to amend the notification, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements?

    Notifications and reports. We are proposing to simplify the 
notification requirements in subpart OOO in several ways. There are 
thousands of NMPP dispersed throughout the U.S. Given the number of 
affected facilities at each NMPP (e.g., individual crushers, screens, 
belt conveyor transfer points, etc.), notifications relating to every 
new affected facility result in volumes of paperwork for both NMPP and 
regulatory agencies. We believe these proposed changes to the 
notification requirements in subpart OOO would reduce the paperwork 
required for the numerous affected NMPP and regulatory personnel 
without sacrificing air quality.
    First, Sec.  60.676(h) of subpart OOO waived the former requirement 
in Sec.  60.7(a)(2) of subpart A for notification of the anticipated 
date of initial startup. Section 60.7(a)(2) was reserved in a 1999 
amendment to subpart A to reduce paperwork burden. We are proposing to 
delete reference to Sec.  60.7(a)(2) in Sec.  60.676(h) to be 
consistent with subpart A. We are also proposing new rule language for 
Sec.  60.676(h) to waive the Sec.  60.7(a)(1) (subpart A) requirement 
to submit a notification of commencement of construction/reconstruction 
for NMPP affected facilities. Non-metallic mineral processing plants 
are already required under State or Federal permit programs to obtain 
permits to construct and/or operate. In efforts to streamline the 
permitting process, many States have set up general permits for NMPP 
(e.g., crushed stone facilities) due to the large number of these 
facilities in most States. We believe the purpose of the Sec.  
60.7(a)(1) notification of commencement of construction/reconstruction 
for NMPP can be adequately served through the NMPP permitting process 
and the Sec.  60.7(a)(3) (subpart A) notification of the actual date of 
initial startup. The Sec.  60.7(a)(3) notification is needed and has 
been retained in subpart OOO because it is tied directly to the initial 
performance test date.
    Second, due to the large number of affected facilities and 
associated notifications and reports, we are proposing to add a new 
Sec.  60.676(k) to subpart OOO stating that notifications generated 
under subpart OOO are only to be sent to either the State (if the State 
is delegated authority to administer NSPS) or to the EPA Region (if the 
State has not been delegated authority), but not to both the State and 
EPA Region.
    Third, we are proposing in Sec.  60.675(g) to change the 30-day 
advance notification deadline (required in Sec.  60.7(a)(6)) for 
performance tests involving only Method 9 to a 7-day advance 
notification. We are proposing this change because of the large number 
of NMPP that are required to conduct only Method 9 testing for fugitive 
emissions from affected facilities, because plans for NMPP Method 9 
opacity readings require little review (if any), and because Method 9 
tests are affected by weather (visibility) and subject to rescheduling 
such that a 30-day advanced notification can be impractical for NMPP. 
We are also proposing to remove the language in Sec.  60.675(g) which 
specified when plants are to notify the Administrator of rescheduled 
test dates because the same language now appears in Sec.  60.8(d) of 
subpart A following an amendment to Sec.  60.8(d) promulgated in 1999.
    Recordkeeping for future affected facilities. We are proposing to 
require NMPP to keep records of periodic inspections performed on water 
sprays (monthly checks that water is flowing) or baghouses (quarterly 
Method 22 readings) controlling future affected facilities. Each 
periodic inspection would be required to be recorded in a logbook which 
may be maintained in written or electronic format. The logbook entries 
would include inspection dates and any corrective actions taken. The 
logbook would be kept onsite and made available to the EPA or delegated 
authority upon request. Plants opting to use bag leak detection systems 
in lieu of periodic visible emissions inspections for baghouses would 
be required to keep the records specified in the proposed Sec.  
60.676(b)(2). According to Sec.  60.7(f), records are required to be 
retained for a period of two years.

V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

    Existing affected facilities that are modified or reconstructed 
would be subject to these proposed amendments for future affected 
facilities. Under CAA section 111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any 
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a 
stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant 
emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air 
pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an existing facility that 
do not result in an increase in emissions are not considered 
modifications.

[[Page 21567]]

    Rebuilt affected facilities would become subject to the proposed 
standards under the reconstruction provisions, regardless of changes in 
emission rate. Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an 
existing facility such that (1) the fixed capital cost of the new 
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be 
required to construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards (40 CFR 60.15).

VI. Clarifications on Subpart OOO

    Today we are clarifying some common questions about the 
applicability of subpart OOO to synthetic gypsum, sodium carbonate, 
lime, and activated carbon. Synthetic gypsum is a by-product of flue 
gas desulfurization (FGD). Synthetic gypsum has the same chemical 
composition as natural gypsum and is used in many of the same products 
as natural gypsum (e.g., gypsum wallboard). We have concluded in prior 
applicability determinations, and wish to clarify today, that synthetic 
gypsum is considered to be a ``nonmetallic mineral'' as defined in 
subpart OOO and plants that crush or grind synthetic gypsum meet the 
subpart OOO definition of ``nonmetallic mineral processing plant.'' 
Electric utilities operating FGD systems use limestone or lime in the 
FGD systems to capture sulfur dioxide emissions and convert the mineral 
material into synthetic gypsum. Some utilities may use sodium carbonate 
as an additive in FGD systems. Limestone and sodium carbonate are 
included in the subpart OOO definition of ``nonmetallic mineral.'' 
Lime, however, is not included in the definition of ``nonmetallic 
mineral'' because processing of lime (which is manufactured by the high 
temperature calcination of limestone) is subject to a separate NSPS 
(NSPS subpart HH for Lime Manufacturing). Therefore, we wish to clarify 
that crushing or grinding of lime does not subject plants to subpart 
OOO. However, electric utilities (or other types of plants) that crush 
or grind limestone or sodium carbonate meet the subpart OOO definition 
of ``nonmetallic mineral processing plant.'' Electric utilities (or 
other types of plants) that handle, but do not crush or grind, the 
nonmetallic minerals limestone, sodium carbonate, or synthetic gypsum 
do not meet the definition of ``nonmetallic mineral processing plant.''
    Activated carbon is also used by some utilities for emissions 
control applications. Activated carbon is not included in the 
definition of ``nonmetallic mineral'' under subpart OOO. Thus, we are 
clarifying that processing of activated carbon is not subject to 
subpart OOO.

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative 
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as 
well as impacts on energy, solid waste, and other effects. We request 
comment on whether we have identified the appropriate alternatives and 
whether these proposed standards adequately take into consideration the 
incremental effects in terms of emission reductions, energy, and other 
effects of these alternatives. We will consider the available 
information in developing the final rule.

A. What are the impacts for NMPP?

    We are presenting estimates of the impacts for these proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO that change the performance 
standards. The cost, environmental, and economic impacts presented in 
this section are expressed as incremental differences between the 
impacts of NMPP complying with the proposed subpart OOO revisions and 
the current NSPS requirements of subpart OOO (i.e., baseline). The 
impacts are presented for future NMPP affected facilities that commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification over the 5 years 
following promulgation of the revised NSPS. The analyses and the 
documents referenced below can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1018.
    In order to determine the incremental impacts of this proposed 
rule, we first estimated that 332 new NMPP would comply with subpart 
OOO in the 5 years following promulgation. For further detail on the 
methodology of these calculations, see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
1018.
    The proposed revisions to the subpart OOO emission limits for 
future affected facilities do not reflect use of any new or different 
control technologies, but are an adjustment of the limits to better 
reflect the performance of current (baseline) control technologies. 
There is no difference in the control systems used to meet baseline and 
those that would be used to meet these proposed revised emission limits 
for future affected facilities. Therefore, there would be no difference 
in control costs, water or solid waste impacts, or actual emission 
reductions achieved as a result of these proposed revisions to the 
emission limits for future affected facilities. As stated previously, 
the effect of reducing the emission limits would be to ensure that the 
typical performance of today's control systems is achieved for future 
affected facilities and that controls with marginal performance are not 
installed in the future. The potential nationwide emission reduction 
(the nationwide emission reduction associated with lowering the PM 
limit from 0.022 to 0.014 gr/dscf) could be as much as 120 megagrams 
per year (Mg/yr) (130 tpy) PM. These potential emission reductions are 
overestimated because the majority of control systems installed on 
future affected facilities would likely have resulted in emissions at 
or below the proposed emission limits even in the absence of these 
proposed revisions.
    Unlike for control costs and emissions reductions, there are 
differences in notification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping (MRR) costs between baseline and these proposed revisions 
to subpart OOO. We are proposing some amendments to subpart OOO that 
would reduce costs and other amendments that would increase costs for 
future affected facilities. We estimate that the increase in nationwide 
annual cost associated with these proposed revisions, including 
annualized capital costs associated with performance testing, is about 
$630,000. The potential emissions reductions associated with these 
proposed MRR revisions are estimated to be 330 Mg/yr (370 tpy) due to 
the shortened duration that excess emissions could occur before being 
corrected under these proposed testing and monitoring revisions.
    The estimated nationwide 5-year incremental emissions reductions 
and cost impacts for these proposed amendments are summarized in Table 
2 of this preamble. The overall cost-effectiveness is about $1,300 per 
ton of PM potentially removed. We estimate that 6 percent (or 28 Mg/yr 
(25 tpy)) of the potential reduction in PM shown in Table 2 is PM less 
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).

[[Page 21568]]



Table 2.--National Incremental Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for NMPP Subject to Proposed Standards Under
                           40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOO (Fifth Year After Promulgation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Potential
                                                                   Total annual       annual      Potential cost-
     Proposed revisions for future affected       Total capital    cost ($1,000/     emission      effectiveness
                   facilities                     cost ($1,000)         yr)         reductions        ($/ton)
                                                                                     (tons/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to emission limits...................               0                0             130               0
Revisions to MRR requirements..................          (1,800)             630             370           1,700
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................          (1,800)             630             500           1,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Negative numbers appear in parentheses. There is a negative capital cost because we are proposing to reduce the
  costs of initial testing requirements by (a) allowing a 30-minute Method 9 test instead of a 1-hour test for
  fugitive affected facilities; and (b) by omitting the 7 percent stack opacity limit and associated initial
  testing from subpart OOO.)

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. These 
proposed revisions would not result in any secondary air impacts or 
increase in overall energy demand because there would be no incremental 
difference in the control systems used to comply with these revisions.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed an economic impact analysis that estimates changes in 
prices and output for nonmetallic minerals nationally using the annual 
compliance costs estimated for this proposed rule. All estimates are 
for the fifth year after promulgation since this is the year for which 
the compliance cost impacts are estimated. The impacts to producers and 
consumers affected by this proposed rule are very slightly higher 
product prices and outputs. Prices for products (processed minerals) 
from affected plants should increase by less than 0.1 percent for the 
fifth year. The output of processed minerals should be affected by less 
than 0.1 percent for the fifth year. Hence, the overall economic impact 
of this proposed NSPS on the affected industries and their consumers 
should be negligible. For more information, please refer to the 
economic impact analysis for this proposed rulemaking that is in the 
public docket.

VIII. Proposed Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability

    As part of this Federal Register notice, we are requesting comments 
on the applicability of subpart UUU to sand reclamation processes at 
metal foundries. Metal foundries use industrial sand (containing 
organic binders and/or clay) to form the molds and cores used to shape 
metal parts. Some metal foundries operate thermal foundry sand 
reclamation units that are sed to remove and destroy the solid remains 
of core/mold binder materials from the sand grains. These thermal sand 
reclamation units are processing industrial sand, a mineral listed in 
the definition of ``mineral processing plant'' in subpart UUU.
    To date, Subpart UUU has applied to iron and steel foundries as 
supported by multiple applicability determinations issued by the Agency 
beginning in 1993.\1\ Most recently, the Agency has issued 
applicability determinations in 2003 and 2004.\2\ Abstracts of these 
determinations were published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2004 
(69 FR 41256) and October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62304). We concluded that 
calciners and dryers used in sand reclamation process at foundries were 
affected sources subject to subpart UUU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from John Rasnic, Director, Stationary Source 
Compliance Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
U.S. EPA to Dieter Liedel, Tanoak Enterprises Inc., March 25, 1993.
    \2\ See Letter from Michael Alushin, Director, Compliance 
Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, U.S. 
EPA to Gary Mosher, Vice President of Environmental Health and 
Safety, American Foundry Society, October 28, 2003, and Letter from 
Michael Alushin, Director, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs 
Division, Office of Compliance, U.S. EPA to Gary Mosher, Vice 
President of Environmental Health and Safety, American Foundry 
Society, April 24, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some State permitting authorities have referred to our 
applicability determinations in deciding applicability of subpart UUU 
to thermal reclamation units in their states, while other States may 
not have considered the possibility of subpart UUU applying to thermal 
sand reclamation units. We believe the result has been inconsistent 
application of subpart UUU to equipment at foundries across the U.S. 
with only a few foundries having equipment that are currently subject 
to the requirements of subpart UUU. Most states for which we reviewed 
thermal foundry sand reclamation unit permits have not considered 
subpart UUU to be applicable to thermal sand reclamation units.
    The preambles to the proposed and promulgated rules for subpart UUU 
provided detailed descriptions of the mineral industries to be 
regulated by subpart UUU. The preamble to the proposed rule identified 
the six source categories listed in the NSPS priority list that are 
covered by subpart UUU. The proposal preamble also explicitly listed 
two industries (roofing granules and magnesium compounds) that are 
covered by subpart UUU but not included in the Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing or Metallic Mineral Processing source categories, Numbers 13 
and 14 on the NSPS priority list, respectively. Foundries, Number 17 on 
the priority list, was not listed for inclusion in subpart UUU. An 
identical listing of the subpart UUU source categories was also 
contained in the promulgation preamble. The foundry industry is not 
discussed in Background Information Documents or in the enabling 
document for subpart UUU. Equipment at metal foundries was not the 
subject of our regulatory analyses when subpart UUU was developed. 
Thus, there was no economic impact evaluation of subpart UUU on the 
foundry sand industry.
    Recently, we evaluated the types of equipment used to reclaim 
industrial sand at metal foundries. There are over 2,000 foundries in 
the U.S. Only a small number of these foundries find it economical to 
use thermal sand reclamation units to remove the binder from the spent 
industrial sand.
    We reviewed the types of foundry sand thermal reclamation units 
commercially available today and permits for some foundries operating 
thermal reclamation units. Thermal foundry sand reclamation units 
differ from equipment used at subpart UUU industrial sand processing 
facilities in a number of ways. Differences between

[[Page 21569]]

thermal sand reclamation units and industrial sand dryers include: 
equipment size, throughput, operating temperature, emissions potential, 
and overall emissions control strategy.
    Based on the preceding discussion, we are proposing to amend Sec.  
60.730(b) to state that ``processes for thermal reclamation of 
industrial sand at metal foundries'' are not subject to the provisions 
of subpart UUU. Today's request for comments on subpart UUU is not an 
NSPS review pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may 
raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1084.09.
    These proposed amendments to the existing standards of performance 
for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants would add repeat testing and 
monitoring requirements for future affected facilities while 
eliminating other requirements. We have revised the information 
collection request (ICR) for the existing rule.
    These proposed amendments to the standards of performance for NMPP 
for existing and future affected facilities include a reduction in 
Method 9 test duration for fugitive emissions, exemption of wet 
material processing operations, and changes to simplify the 
notification requirements. Additional proposed revisions for future 
affected facilities include changes to emission limits, elimination of 
the stack opacity limit, and addition of repeat testing and periodic 
monitoring requirements. These proposed repeat testing requirements 
require repeat tests within 5 years from the previous performance test 
for selected affected facilities (e.g., fugitive affected facilities 
without water sprays). The monitoring requirements include periodic 
inspections of water sprays and baghouse visible emissions. We have 
minimized the burden associated with these repeat testing and 
monitoring requirements by selecting longer frequencies for the 
requirements (e.g., repeats tests every 5 years as opposed to annually; 
monthly inspections of water sprays as opposed to daily, etc.); 
minimizing duplication of ongoing compliance measures (e.g., no repeat 
tests for affected facilities which have periodic monitoring); and by 
not specifying additional reporting requirements for the periodic 
inspection provisions. These requirements are based on recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart A, and on specific requirements in subpart OOO which 
are mandatory for all operators subject to NSPS. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 11,330 labor-hours per 
year at a cost of $1,025,966 per year. The annualized capital costs are 
estimated at $154,577 per year. There are no estimated annual operation 
and maintenance costs. We note that information collection costs to 
industry are also included in the incremental cost impacts presented in 
section VII of this preamble. Therefore, the burden costs presented in 
the ICR are not additional costs incurred by sources subject to subpart 
OOO. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1018. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed 
rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
document for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 
Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 22, 2008, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 22, 
2008. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 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 these proposed revisions 
to subpart OOO on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 
small business whose parent company has no more than 500 employees, 
depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code (as 
defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards found at 
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/servsstd_tablepdf.pdf); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of these proposed revisions 
to subpart OOO on small entities, I certify that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. We estimate that up to 96 percent (318) of the 332 entities 
with projected new NMPP could potentially be classified as small 
entities according to the SBA small business size standards for 
industries identified as affected by these proposed revisions. No small 
entities are expected to incur an annualized compliance cost of more 
than 0.09 percent to comply with this proposed action. For more 
information, please refer to the economic impact analysis that is in 
the public docket for this proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 21570]]

    Although this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed action on future small 
entities by reducing the test duration for fugitive emissions, 
exempting wet material processing operations, simplifying certain 
notification requirements, eliminating the stack opacity limit, and 
selecting relatively low-cost repeat testing and monitoring provisions. 
In addition, certain plants operating at small capacities were exempted 
from subpart OOO due to economic considerations when the standards were 
originally developed. These proposed revisions to subpart OOO do not 
affect these exempted small plants; that is, they continue to be 
exempted from the standards.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues 
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 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, 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 to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 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 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 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 proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, 
the estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year 
after promulgation are $630 thousand. Thus, this proposed action is not 
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has 
determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This proposed action contains no requirements that apply 
to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would not 
result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year 
or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, this proposed 
action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this proposed action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This proposed action does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. 
This proposed rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of 
specified industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action. EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

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

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

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

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
effects.

[[Page 21571]]

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards (VCS).
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
to use EPA Methods 5, 5I, 9, 17, and 22, of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. The 
Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards. We identified no standards for Methods 9 and 22, 
and none were brought to our attention in comments from stakeholders 
during this proposed rule development. While the Agency identified five 
VCS as being potentially applicable to EPA Methods 5, 5I, or 17, we do 
not propose to use these standards in this proposed rulemaking. The use 
of these VCS would be impractical for the purposes of this proposed 
rule. See the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these 
determinations for the standards.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule would reduce emissions of PM from 
all new, reconstructed, or modified affected facilities at NMPP, 
decreasing the amount of such emissions to which all affected 
populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 16, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart OOO--[Amended]

    2. Revise subpart OOO to read as follows:
Subpart OOO--Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing Plants
Sec.
60.670 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.671 Definitions.
60.672 Standard for particulate matter (PM).
60.673 Reconstruction.
60.674 Monitoring of operations.
60.675 Test methods and procedures.
60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.

Tables to Subpart OOO of Part 60

Table 1 to Subpart OOO--Exceptions to Applicability of Subpart A to 
Subpart OOO
Table 2 to Subpart OOO--Stack emission limits for affected 
facilities with capture systems
Table 3 to Subpart OOO--Fugitive emission limits for affected 
facilities without capture systems

Subpart OOO--Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing Plants


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; plants without 
crushers or grinding mills; and wet material processing operations (as 
defined in Sec.  60.671).
    (b) An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of 
subpart F or I of this part or that follows in the plant process any 
facility subject to the provisions of subparts F or I of this part is 
not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (c) Facilities at the following plants are not subject to the 
provisions of this subpart:
    (1) Fixed sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with 
capacities, as defined in Sec.  60.671, of 23 megagrams per hour (25 
tons per hour) or less;
    (2) Portable sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with 
capacities, as defined in Sec.  60.671, of 136 megagrams per hour (150 
tons per hour) or less; and
    (3) Common clay plants and pumice plants with capacities, as 
defined in Sec.  60.671, of 9 megagrams per hour (10 tons per hour) or 
less.
    (d)(1) When an existing facility is replaced by a piece of 
equipment of equal or smaller size, as defined in Sec.  60.671, having 
the same function as the existing facility, and there is no increase in 
the amount of emissions, the new facility is exempt from the provisions 
of Sec. Sec.  60.672, 60.674, and 60.675 except as provided for in 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (2) An owner or operator complying with paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section shall submit the information required in Sec.  60.676(a).
    (3) An owner or operator replacing all existing facilities in a 
production line

[[Page 21572]]

with new facilities does not qualify for the exemption described in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section and must comply with the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  60.672, 60.674 and 60.675.
    (e) An affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that 
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after August 
31, 1983 is subject to the requirements of this part.
    (f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this part 60 that do not apply to owners and operators of affected 
facilities subject to this subpart or that apply with certain 
exceptions.


Sec.  60.671  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart, but not specifically defined in 
this section, shall have the meaning given them in the Act and in 
subpart A of this part.
    Bagging operation means the mechanical process by which bags are 
filled with nonmetallic minerals.
    Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports material 
from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is 
carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end.
    Bucket elevator means a conveying device of nonmetallic minerals 
consisting of a head and foot assembly which supports and drives an 
endless single or double strand chain or belt to which buckets are 
attached.
    Building means any frame structure with a roof.
    Capacity means the cumulative rated capacity of all initial 
crushers that are part of the plant.
    Capture system means the equipment (including enclosures, hoods, 
ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport particulate 
matter generated by one or more process operations to a control device.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
reduce particulate matter emissions released to the atmosphere from one 
or more process operations at a nonmetallic mineral processing plant.
    Conveying system means a device for transporting materials from one 
piece of equipment or location to another location within a plant. 
Conveying systems include but are not limited to the following: 
Feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems.
    Crush or Crushing means to reduce the size of nonmetallic mineral 
material by means of physical impaction of the crusher or grinding mill 
upon the material.
    Crusher means a machine used to crush any nonmetallic minerals, and 
includes, but is not limited to, the following types: jaw, gyratory, 
cone, roll, rod mill, hammermill, and impactor.
    Enclosed truck or railcar loading station means that portion of a 
nonmetallic mineral processing plant where nonmetallic minerals are 
loaded by an enclosed conveying system into enclosed trucks or 
railcars.
    Fixed plant means any nonmetallic mineral processing plant at which 
the processing equipment specified in Sec.  60.670(a) is attached by a 
cable, chain, turnbuckle, bolt or other means (except electrical 
connections) to any anchor, slab, or structure including bedrock.
    Fugitive emission means particulate matter that is not collected by 
a capture system and is released to the atmosphere at the point of 
generation.
    Grinding mill means a machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing 
of any nonmetallic mineral. Grinding mills include, but are not limited 
to, the following types: hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and 
fluid energy. The grinding mill includes the air conveying system, air 
separator, or air classifier, where such systems are used.
    Initial crusher means any crusher into which nonmetallic minerals 
can be fed without prior crushing in the plant.
    Nonmetallic mineral means any of the following minerals or any 
mixture of which the majority is any of the following minerals:
    (1) Crushed and Broken Stone, including Limestone, Dolomite, 
Granite, Traprock, Sandstone, Quartz, Quartzite, Marl, Marble, Slate, 
Shale, Oil Shale, and Shell.
    (2) Sand and Gravel.
    (3) Clay including Kaolin, Fireclay, Bentonite, Fuller's Earth, 
Ball Clay, and Common Clay.
    (4) Rock Salt.
    (5) Gypsum.
    (6) Sodium Compounds, including Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Chloride, 
and Sodium Sulfate.
    (7) Pumice.
    (8) Gilsonite.
    (9) Talc and Pyrophyllite.
    (10) Boron, including Borax, Kernite, and Colemanite.
    (11) Barite.
    (12) Fluorospar.
    (13) Feldspar.
    (14) Diatomite.
    (15) Perlite.
    (16) Vermiculite.
    (17) Mica.
    (18) Kyanite, including Andalusite, Sillimanite, Topaz, and 
Dumortierite.
    Nonmetallic mineral processing plant means any combination of 
equipment that is used to crush or grind any nonmetallic mineral 
wherever located, including lime plants, power plants, steel mills, 
asphalt concrete plants, portland cement plants, or any other facility 
processing nonmetallic minerals except as provided in Sec.  60.670(b) 
and (c).
    Portable plant means any nonmetallic mineral processing plant that 
is mounted on any chassis or skids and may be moved by the application 
of a lifting or pulling force. In addition, there shall be no cable, 
chain, turnbuckle, bolt or other means (except electrical connections) 
by which any piece of equipment is attached or clamped to any anchor, 
slab, or structure, including bedrock that must be removed prior to the 
application of a lifting or pulling force for the purpose of 
transporting the unit.
    Production line means all affected facilities (crushers, grinding 
mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, belt conveyors, bagging 
operations, storage bins, and enclosed truck and railcar loading 
stations) which are directly connected or are connected together by a 
conveying system.
    Saturated material means, for purposes of this subpart, mineral 
material with sufficient surface moisture such that particulate matter 
emissions are not generated from processing of the material though 
screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors. Material 
that is wetted solely by wet suppression systems is not considered to 
be ``saturated'' for purposes of this definition.
    Seasonal shut down means shut down of an affected facility for a 
period of at least 45 consecutive days due to seasonal market 
conditions.
    Screening operation means a device for separating material 
according to size by passing undersize material through one or more 
mesh surfaces (screens) in series, and retaining oversize material on 
the mesh surfaces (screens). Grizzly feeders associated with truck 
dumping and static (non-moving) grizzlies used anywhere in the 
nonmetallic mineral processing plant are not considered to be screening 
operations.
    Size means the rated capacity in tons per hour of a crusher, 
grinding mill, bucket elevator, bagging operation, or enclosed truck or 
railcar loading station; the total surface area of the top screen of a 
screening operation; the width of a conveyor belt; and the rated 
capacity in tons of a storage bin.
    Stack emission means the particulate matter that is released to the 
atmosphere from a capture system.
    Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins) or 
nonmetallic minerals prior to further processing or loading.

[[Page 21573]]

    Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the 
nonmetallic mineral is transferred to or from a belt conveyor except 
where the nonmetallic mineral is being transferred to a stockpile.
    Truck dumping means the unloading of nonmetallic minerals from 
movable vehicles designed to transport nonmetallic minerals from one 
location to another. Movable vehicles include but are not limited to: 
trucks, front end loaders, skip hoists, and railcars.
    Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced 
air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying 
particulate matter emissions from one or more affected facilities.
    Wet material processing operation(s) means any of the following:
    (1) Wet screening operations (as defined in this section) and 
subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors in 
the production line that process saturated materials (as defined in 
this section) up to the first crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in 
the production line; or
    (2) Screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors in 
the production line downstream of wet mining operations (as defined in 
this section) that process saturated materials (as defined in this 
section) up to the first crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in the 
production line.
    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.


Sec.  60.672  Standard for particulate matter (PM).

    (a) You must meet the stack emission limits and compliance 
requirements in Table 2 of this subpart within 60 days 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.  60.8. The requirements in Table 2 apply for affected 
facilities with capture systems.
    (b) You must meet the fugitive emission limits and compliance 
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart within 60 days 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. The requirements in Table 3 apply for fugitive 
emissions from affected facilities without capture systems.
    (c) [RESERVED]
    (d) Truck dumping of nonmetallic minerals into any screening 
operation, feed hopper, or crusher is exempt from the requirements of 
this section.
    (e) If any transfer point on a conveyor belt or any other affected 
facility is enclosed in a building, then each enclosed affected 
facility must comply with the emission limits in paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section, or the building enclosing the affected facility or 
facilities must comply with the following emission limits:
    (1) Fugitive emissions from the building openings (except for vents 
as defined in Sec.  60.671) must not exceed 7 percent opacity; and
    (2) Vents (as defined in Sec.  60.671) in the building must meet 
the applicable stack emission limits and compliance requirements in 
Table 2 of this subpart.
    (f) Any baghouse that controls emissions from only an individual, 
enclosed storage bin is exempt from the applicable stack PM 
concentration limit (and associated performance testing) in Table 2 of 
this subpart but must meet the applicable stack opacity limit and 
compliance requirements in Table 2 of this subpart. Owners or operators 
of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions must meet both 
the applicable PM concentration and opacity limits (and associated 
compliance requirements) in Table 2 of this subpart.


Sec.  60.673  Reconstruction.

    (a) The cost of replacement of ore-contact surfaces on processing 
equipment shall not be considered in calculating either the ``fixed 
capital cost of the new components'' or the ``fixed capital cost that 
would be required to construct a comparable new facility'' under Sec.  
60.15. Ore-contact surfaces are crushing surfaces; screen meshes, bars, 
and plates; conveyor belts; and elevator buckets.
    (b) Under Sec.  60.15, the ``fixed capital cost of the new 
components'' includes the fixed capital cost of all depreciable 
components (except components specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section) which are or will be replaced pursuant to all continuous 
programs of component replacement commenced within any 2-year period 
following August 31, 1983.


Sec.  60.674  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) The owner or operator of any affected facility subject to the 
provisions of this subpart which uses a wet scrubber to control 
emissions shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate the following 
monitoring devices:
    (1) A device for the continuous measurement of the pressure loss of 
the gas stream through the scrubber. The monitoring device must be 
certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 250 
pascals 1 inch water gauge pressure and must be calibrated 
on an annual basis in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
    (2) A device for the continuous measurement of the scrubbing liquid 
flow rate to the wet scrubber. The monitoring device must be certified 
by the manufacturer to be accurate within 5 percent of 
design scrubbing liquid flow rate and must be calibrated on an annual 
basis in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
    (b) The owner or operator of any affected facility installed after 
April 22, 2008 that uses wet suppression to control emissions from an 
affected facility must perform monthly periodic inspections to check 
that water is flowing to discharge spray nozzles in the wet suppression 
system. You must initiate corrective action within 24 hours if you find 
that water is not flowing properly during an inspection of the water 
spray nozzles. You must record each inspection of the water spray 
nozzles, including the date of each inspection and any corrective 
actions taken, in the logbook required under Sec.  60.676(b).
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner 
or operator of any affected facility installed after April 22, 2008 
that uses a baghouse to control emissions must conduct a quarterly 30-
minute visible emissions inspection using EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part 
60, Appendix A-7). The Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) test 
shall be conducted while the baghouse is operating. The test is 
successful if no visible emissions are observed. If any visible 
emissions are observed, you must initiate corrective action within 24 
hours to return the baghouse to normal operation. You must record each 
Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) test, including the date and 
any corrective actions taken, in the logbook required under Sec.  
60.676(b). If necessary, you may establish a different baghouse-
specific success level for the visible emissions test (other than no 
visible emissions) by conducting a PM performance test according to 
Sec.  60.675(b) simultaneously with a Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix

[[Page 21574]]

A-7) test to determine what constitutes normal visible emissions from 
your baghouse when it is in compliance with the applicable PM 
concentration limit in Table 2 of this subpart. The revised visible 
emissions success level must be incorporated into your permit.
    (d) As an alternative to the periodic Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-7) visible emissions inspections specified in paragraph (c) 
of this section, the owner or operator of any affected facility 
installed after April 22, 2008 that uses a baghouse to control 
emissions may use a bag leak detection system. You must install, 
operate, and maintain the bag leak detection system according to 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual 
cubic foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record 
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other 
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative 
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, 
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm 
set points, and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the 
averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval 
from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in 
paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag 
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including 
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the 
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of 
the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated 
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak 
detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all 
times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs 
(d)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, 
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory 
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored; and
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators 
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an 
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this 
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately 
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested 
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    (3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this section, you 
must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by 
taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions 
may include, but are not limited to the following:
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
PM emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.


Sec.  60.675  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, the 
owner or operator shall use as reference methods and procedures the 
test methods in appendices A-1 through A-7 of this part or other 
methods and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided 
in Sec.  60.8(b). Acceptable alternative methods and procedures are 
given in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the PM 
standards in Sec.  60.672(a) as follows:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this 
section, Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part or Method 17 of Appendix 
A-6 of this part shall be used to determine the particulate matter 
concentration. The sample volume shall be at least 1.70 dscm (60 dscf). 
For Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3), if the gas stream being 
sampled is at ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be 
operated without heaters. If the gas stream is above ambient 
temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated at a 
temperature high enough, but no higher than 121 [deg]C (250 [deg]F), to 
prevent water condensation on the filter.
    (2) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part and the procedures in 
Sec.  60.11 shall be used to determine opacity.
    (c)(1) In determining compliance with the particulate matter 
standards in Sec.  60.672(b) or Sec.  60.672(e)(1), the owner or 
operator shall use Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part and the 
procedures in Sec.  60.11, with the following additions:
    (i) The minimum distance between the observer and the emission 
source shall be 4.57 meters (15 feet).
    (ii) The observer shall, when possible, select a position that 
minimizes interference from other fugitive emission sources (e.g., road 
dust). The required observer position relative to the sun (Method 9 of 
Appendix A-4 of this part, Section 2.1) must be followed.
    (iii) For affected facilities using wet dust suppression for 
particulate matter control, a visible mist is sometimes generated by 
the spray. The water mist must not be confused with particulate matter 
emissions and is not to be considered a visible emission. When a water 
mist of this nature is present, the observation of emissions is to be 
made

[[Page 21575]]

at a point in the plume where the mist is no longer visible.
    (2)(i) 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 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4), the duration of the 
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) observations shall be 1 hour 
(ten 6-minute averages).
    (ii) The duration of the Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) 
observations may be reduced to the duration the affected facility 
operates (but not less than 30 minutes) for baghouses that control 
storage bins or enclosed truck or railcar loading stations that operate 
for less than 1 hour at a time.
    (3) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions 
standard for any affected facility described under Sec.  60.672(b) or 
Sec.  60.672(e)(1) of this subpart, the duration of the Method 9 (40 
CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) observations must be 30 minutes (five 6-
minute averages). Compliance with the applicable fugitive emission 
limits in Table 3 of this subpart must be based on the average of the 
five 6-minute averages.
    (d) To demonstrate compliance with the fugitive emission limits for 
buildings specified in Sec.  60.672(e)(1), you must complete the 
testing specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of this section. 
Performance tests must be conducted while all affected facilities 
inside the building are operating.
    (1) If your building encloses any affected facility that commences 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 
2008, you must conduct an initial Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-
4) performance test according to this section and Sec.  60.11. You must 
conduct a repeat Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit within 5 years 
from the previous performance test.
    (2) If your building encloses only affected facilities that 
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction before April 
22, 2008 and you have previously conducted an initial Method 22 (40 CFR 
part 60, Appendix A-7) performance test showing zero visible emissions, 
then you have demonstrated compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  
60.672(e)(1). If you have not conducted an initial performance test for 
your building before April 22, 2008, then you must conduct an initial 
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) performance test according to 
this section and Sec.  60.11 to show compliance with the opacity limit 
in Sec.  60.672(e)(1).
    (e) The owner or operator may use the following as alternatives to 
the reference methods and procedures specified in this section:
    (1) For the method and procedure of paragraph (c) of this section, 
if emissions from two or more facilities continuously interfere so that 
the opacity of fugitive emissions from an individual affected facility 
cannot be read, either of the following procedures may be used:
    (i) Use for the combined emissions stream the highest fugitive 
opacity standard applicable to any of the individual affected 
facilities contributing to the emissions stream.
    (ii) Separate the emissions so that the opacity of emissions from 
each affected facility can be read.
    (2) A single visible emission observer may conduct visible emission 
observations for up to three fugitive, stack, or vent emission points 
within a 15-second interval if the following conditions are met:
    (i) No more than three emission points may be read concurrently.
    (ii) All three emission points must be within a 70 degree viewing 
sector or angle in front of the observer such that the proper sun 
position can be maintained for all three points.
    (iii) If an opacity reading for any one of the three emission 
points is within 5 percent opacity from the applicable standard 
(excluding readings of zero opacity), then the observer must stop 
taking readings for the other two points and continue reading just that 
single point.
    (3) Method 5I of Appendix A-3 of this part may be used to determine 
the PM concentration as an alternative to the methods specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Method 5I (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 
A-3) may be useful for affected facilities that operate for less than 1 
hour at a time such as (but not limited to) storage bins or enclosed 
truck or railcar loading stations.
    (4) In some cases, velocities of exhaust gases from building vents 
may be too low to measure accurately with the type S pitot tube 
specified in EPA Method 2 of Appendix A-1 of this part [i.e., velocity 
head <1.3 mm H2O (0.05 in. H2O)] and referred to 
in EPA Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part. For these conditions, you 
may determine the average gas flow rate produced by the power fans 
(e.g., from vendor-supplied fan curves) to the building vent. You may 
calculate the average gas velocity at the building vent measurement 
site using Equation 1 of this section and use this average velocity in 
determining and maintaining isokinetic sampling rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP08.003

Where:

ve = average building vent velocity (feet per minute)
Qf = average fan flow rate (cubic feet per minute)
Ae = area of building vent and measurement location 
(square feet)

    (f) To comply with Sec.  60.676(d), the owner or operator shall 
record the measurements as required in Sec.  60.676(c) using the 
monitoring devices in Sec.  60.674(a)(1) and (2) during each 
particulate matter run and shall determine the averages.
    (g) For performance tests involving only Method 9 (40 CFR part 60 
Appendix A-4) testing, you may reduce the 30-day advance notification 
of performance test in Sec.  60.7(a)(6) and 60.8(d) to a 7-day advance 
notification.
    (h) [Reserved]
    (i) If the initial performance test date for an affected facility 
falls during a seasonal shut down (as defined in Sec.  60.671 of this 
subpart) of the affected facility, then with approval from your 
permitting authority, you may postpone the initial performance test 
until no later than 60 calendar days after resuming operation of the 
affected facility.


Sec.  60.676  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  60.670(d) 
shall submit to the Administrator the following information about the 
existing facility being replaced and the replacement piece of 
equipment.
    (1) For a crusher, grinding mill, bucket elevator, bagging 
operation, or enclosed truck or railcar loading station:
    (i) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons per hour of the 
existing facility being replaced and
    (ii) The rated capacity in tons per hour of the replacement 
equipment.
    (2) For a screening operation:
    (i) The total surface area of the top screen of the existing 
screening operation being replaced and
    (ii) The total surface area of the top screen of the replacement 
screening operation.
    (3) For a conveyor belt:
    (i) The width of the existing belt being replaced and
    (ii) The width of the replacement conveyor belt.
    (4) For a storage bin:
    (i) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons of the existing storage 
bin being replaced and

[[Page 21576]]

    (ii) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons of replacement storage 
bins.
    (b)(1) Affected facilities (as defined in Sec. Sec.  60.670 and 
60.671) installed after April 22, 2008 must record each periodic 
inspection required under Sec.  60.674(b) or (c), including dates and 
any corrective actions taken, in a logbook (in written or electronic 
format). You must keep the logbook onsite and make the logbook 
available to the Administrator upon request.
    (2) For each bag leak detection system installed and operated 
according to Sec.  60.674(d), you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including 
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection 
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, 
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were 
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, 
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether 
the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
    (c) During the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, and 
daily thereafter, the owner or operator shall record the measurements 
of both the change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber 
and the scrubbing liquid flow rate.
    (d) After the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, the owner 
or operator shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator of 
occurrences when the measurements of the scrubber pressure loss and 
liquid flow rate decrease by more than 30 percent from the average 
determined during the most recent performance test.
    (e) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall 
be postmarked within 30 days following end of the second and fourth 
calendar quarters.
    (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 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec.  60.672(b), (e) and (f).
    (g) The owner or operator of any wet material processing operation 
that processes saturated 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 applicable opacity limit in Sec.  
60.672(b) and the emission test requirements of Sec.  60.11.
    (h) The subpart A requirement under Sec.  60.7(a)(1) for 
notification of the date construction or reconstruction commenced is 
waived for affected facilities 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.
    (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.
    (k) Notifications and reports required under this subpart and under 
subpart A of this part to demonstrate compliance with this subpart need 
only to be sent to the EPA Region or the State which has been delegated 
authority according to Sec.  60.4(b).

  Table 1 to Subpart OOO.--Exceptions to Applicability of Subpart A to
                               Subpart OOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
     Subpart A reference               OOO                 Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.4, Address...............  Yes.................  Except in Sec.
                                                     60.4 (a) and (b)
                                                     submittals need not
                                                     be submitted to
                                                     both the EPA Region
                                                     and delegated State
                                                     authority (Sec.
                                                     60.676(k)).
60.7, Notification and        Yes.................  Except in (a)(1)
 recordkeeping.                                      notification of the
                                                     date construction
                                                     or reconstruction
                                                     commenced (Sec.
                                                     60.676(h)). Also,
                                                     except in (a)(6)
                                                     performance tests
                                                     involving only
                                                     Method 9 (40 CFR
                                                     part 60, Appendix A-
                                                     4) require a 7-day
                                                     advance
                                                     notification
                                                     instead of 30 days
                                                     (Sec.   60.675(g)).
60.8, Performance tests.....  Yes.................  Except in (d)
                                                     performance tests
                                                     involving only
                                                     Method 9 (40 CFR
                                                     part 60, Appendix A-
                                                     4) require a 7-day
                                                     advance
                                                     notification
                                                     instead of 30 days
                                                     (Sec.   60.675(g)).
60.11, Compliance with        Yes.................  Except in (b) under
 standards and maintenance                           certain conditions
 requirements.                                       (Sec.  Sec.
                                                     60.675(c)), Method
                                                     9 (40 CFR part 60,
                                                     Appendix A-4)
                                                     observation is
                                                     reduced from 3
                                                     hours to 30 minutes
                                                     for fugitive
                                                     affected
                                                     facilities.
60.18, General control        No..................  Flares will not be
 device.                                             used to comply with
                                                     the emission
                                                     limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 21577]]


           Table 2 to Subpart OOO.--Stack Emission Limits for Affected Facilities With Capture Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           You must demonstrate
                                          You must meet a PM      And you must meet an    compliance with these
              For . . .                     limit of . . .      opacity limit of . . .,   limits by conducting .
                                                                                                   . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected facilities (as defined in     0.05 g/dscm (0.022 gr/   7 percent for dry        An initial performance
 Sec.  Sec.   60.670 and 60.671) that   dscf) \a\.               control devices \b\.     test according to Sec.
 commence construction,                                                                     60.8 of this part
 reconstruction, or modification                                                          and Sec.   60.675 of
 after August 31, 1983 but before                                                         this subpart; and
 April 22, 2008.                                                                         Monitoring of wet
                                                                                          scrubber parameters
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          60.674(a) and Sec.
                                                                                          60.676 (c), (d), and
                                                                                          (e).
Affected facilities (as defined in     0.032 g/dscm (0.014 gr/  Not applicable (except   An initial performance
 Sec.  Sec.   60.670 and 60.671) that   dscf) \a\.               for individual           test according to Sec.
 commence construction,                                          enclosed storage           60.8 of this part
 reconstruction, or modification on                              bins);                   and Sec.   60.675 of
 or after April 22, 2008.                                       7 percent for dry         this subpart; and
                                                                 control devices on      Monitoring of wet
                                                                 individual enclosed      scrubber parameters
                                                                 storage bins;.           according to Sec.
                                                                                          60.674(a) and Sec.
                                                                                          60.676(c), (d), and
                                                                                          (e); and
                                                                                         Monitoring of baghouses
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          60.674(c) or (d) and
                                                                                          Sec.   60.676(b).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Exceptions to the PM limit apply for individual enclosed storage bins and other equipment. See Sec.   60.672
  (d) through (h).
\b\ The stack opacity limit and associated opacity testing requirements do not apply for affected facilities
  using wet scrubbers.


        Table 3 to Subpart OOO.--Fugitive Emission Limits for Affected Facilities Without Capture Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          You must meet the
                                          following fugitive
                                         emissions limit for
                                           grinding mills,
                                        screening operations,      You must meet the       You must demonstrate
                                          bucket elevators,        following fugitive     compliance with these
              For . . .                transfer points on belt    emissions limit for     limits by conducting .
                                          conveyors, bagging         crushers . . .                . .
                                         operations, storage
                                          bins, and enclosed
                                           truck or railcar
                                        loading stations . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected facilities (as defined in     10 percent opacity.....  15 percent opacity.....  An initial performance
 Sec.  Sec.   60.670 and 60.671) that                                                     test according to Sec.
 commence construction,                                                                     60.11 of this part
 reconstruction, or modification                                                          and Sec.   60.675 of
 after August 31, 1983 but before                                                         this subpart.
 April 22, 2008.
Affected facilities (as defined in     7 percent opacity......  12 percent opacity.....  An initial performance
 Sec.  Sec.  60.670 and 60.671) that                                                      test according to Sec.
 commence construction,                                                                     60.11 of this part
 reconstruction, or modification on                                                       and Sec.   60.675 of
 or after April 22, 2008.                                                                 this subpart; and
                                                                                         Periodic inspections of
                                                                                          water sprays according
                                                                                          to Sec.   60.674(b)
                                                                                          and Sec.   60.676(b);
                                                                                          and
                                                                                         A repeat performance
                                                                                          test within 5 years
                                                                                          from the previous
                                                                                          performance test for
                                                                                          fugitive affected
                                                                                          facilities without
                                                                                          water sprays according
                                                                                          to Sec.   60.11 of
                                                                                          this part and Sec.
                                                                                          60.675 of this
                                                                                          subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart UUU--[Amended]

    3. Section 60.730 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.730  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of 
subpart LL of this part, Metallic Mineral Processing Plants, is not 
subject to the provisions of this subpart. Also, the following are not 
subject to the provisions of this subpart:
    (1) The following processes and process units used at mineral 
processing plants: vertical shaft kilns in the magnesium compounds 
industry; the chlorination-oxidation process in the titanium dioxide 
industry; coating kilns, mixers, and aerators in the roofing granules 
industry; tunnel kilns, tunnel dryers, apron dryers, and grinding 
equipment that also dries the process material used in any of the 17 
mineral industries (as defined in Sec.  60.731, ``Mineral processing 
plant''); and
    (2) Processes for thermal reclamation of industrial sand at metal 
foundries.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-8677 Filed 4-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P