[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19294-19316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9435]



[[Page 19293]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 60



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19294]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018; FRL-8896-7]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments to the Standards of Performance 
for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant(s) (NMPP). These final 
amendments include revisions to the emission limits for NMPP affected 
facilities which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or after April 22, 2008. These final amendments for NMPP also 
include: Additional testing and monitoring requirements for affected 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or after April 22, 2008; exemption of affected facilities that 
process wet material from this final rule; changes to simplify the 
notification requirements for all affected facilities; and changes to 
definitions and various clarifications. We are not taking any final 
action in this document regarding the amendment to the Standards of 
Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries discussed in 
the proposed rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action which is Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://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 (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. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information on Subpart OOO
III. Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO and Changes 
Since Proposal
    A. What are the final emission limits for NMPP (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart OOO)?
    B. How is EPA amending subpart OOO applicability and 
definitions?
    C. What are the final testing requirements for subpart OOO?
    D. What are the final monitoring requirements for subpart OOO?
    E. What are the final notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements for subpart OOO?
IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses on Subpart OOO
    A. Need for New Source Performance Standards
    B. Emission Limits
    C. Applicability and Definitions
    D. Testing Requirements
    E. Monitoring Requirements
    F. Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    G. Construction, Modification, and Reconstruction
    H. Cost Impacts
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO
    A. What are the impacts for NMPP?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
VI. No Final Action Taken With Respect To Subpart UUU Applicability
VII. 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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by the final 
amendments to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for NMPP (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart OOO) include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NAICS code
                    Category                          \1\                Examples of regulated 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.

[[Page 19295]]

 
                                                       327310  Cement Manufacturing.
                                                       327410  Lime Manufacturing (Dolomite, Dead-burned,
                                                                Manufacturing).
                                                       327420  Gypsum Product Manufacturing.
                                                       327992  Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth
                                                                Manufacturing.
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 
final action. To determine whether your facility will be regulated by 
this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 
CFR 60.670 (subpart OOO). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this final action to a particular entity, contact the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by June 29, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information on Subpart OOO

    NSPS implement 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). Standards of performance for NMPP (40 CFR, subpart 
OOO) were promulgated in the Federal Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR 
31328).
    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. The first action taken 
with respect to the NMPP NSPS was completed on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 
31351).
    We proposed the current review of the NMPP NSPS on April 22, 2008 
(73 FR 21559). We received a total of 26 comments from NMPP, industry 
trade associations, and State environmental agencies during the comment 
period. This final rule reflects our consideration of all the comments 
we received. Detailed responses to the comments not included in this 
preamble are contained in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
document which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

III. Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO and Changes Since 
Proposal

    The NMPP NSPS applies to affected facilities for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or after 
August 31, 1983, at plants that process any of the following 18 
nonmetallic minerals: Crushed and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay, 
rock salt, gypsum (natural or synthetic), 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.
    The final amendments to the NMPP NSPS (subpart OOO of 40 CFR part 
60) are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.

[[Page 19296]]



         Table 1--Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                              Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   60.670(a)(2)...............  Exempt wet material processing
                                     operations; clarify rule does not
                                     apply to plants with no crushers or
                                     grinding mills.
Sec.   60.670(d)(1)...............  Amend to clarify that like-for-like
                                     replacements have no emissions
                                     increase.
Sec.   60.670(f)..................  Revise to conform with amended Table
                                     1 to subpart OOO.
Sec.   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.
                                    Amend definition of nonmetallic
                                     mineral to include gypsum (natural
                                     or synthetic).
                                    Amend definition of storage bin to
                                     correct typographical error by
                                     changing ``or'' to ``of''.
                                    Amend definitions of ``capture
                                     system'' and ``control device'' to
                                     replace the words ``process
                                     operations'' with ``affected
                                     facilities''.
Sec.   60.672(a) and (b)..........  Revise to reference Tables 2 and 3
                                     to subpart OOO and to better match
                                     General Provisions language
                                     regarding compliance dates. Tables
                                     2 and 3 to subpart OOO contain
                                     revised emission limits and testing/
                                     monitoring requirements.
Sec.   60.672(c)..................  Reserve because superseded by Table
                                     3 to subpart OOO.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   60.672(f) and (g)..........  Consolidate paragraphs to refer to
                                     Table 2 to subpart OOO.
Sec.  Sec.   60.672(h) and          Remove 60.672(h) and reserve
 60.675(h).                          60.675(h) because wet material
                                     processing exempted.
Sec.   60.674.....................  Renumber (a) and (b) as (a)(1) and
                                     (2).
                                    Add periodic inspections for
                                     affected facilities that commence
                                     construction, modification, or
                                     reconstruction on or after April
                                     22, 2008, that use wet suppression
                                     or rely on water carryover from
                                     upstream wet suppression water
                                     sprays. Add monitoring requirements
                                     for baghouses on affected
                                     facilities that commence
                                     construction, modification, or
                                     reconstruction on or after April
                                     22, 2008 (Method 22 visible
                                     emission inspections or use of bag
                                     leak detection systems).
                                    Add paragraph (e) to cite as an
                                     alternative the baghouse monitoring
                                     requirements in the Lime
                                     Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part
                                     63, subpart AAAAA) for processed
                                     stone handling operations subject
                                     to the NESHAP.
Sec.   60.675 and various other     Add text to clarify that the
 sections referencing test methods.  required EPA test methods are
                                     located in Appendices A-1 through A-
                                     7 of 40 CFR part 60 (formerly
                                     Appendix A of 60 CFR part 60).
Sec.   60.675(b)(1)...............  Cross reference exceptions to Method
                                     5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) or
                                     Method 17 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix
                                     A-6).
Sec.   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.
                                    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.
Sec.   60.675(d)..................  Specify performance testing
                                     requirements for the building
                                     fugitive emission limit. Allow
                                     prior Method 22 tests showing
                                     compliance with the former no
                                     visible emissions (VE) limit.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   60.675(f)..................  Correct cross references.
Sec.   60.675(g)..................  Revise to reduce 30-day advance
                                     notification time for Method 9
                                     fugitive performance test to 7
                                     days. Clarify that a wet material
                                     processing operation that begins to
                                     process unsaturated material
                                     becomes subject to the opacity
                                     limit at the time processing of
                                     unsaturated material begins.
Sec.   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).
Sec.   60.676(b)..................  Add requirement to previously
                                     reserved paragraph (b) for
                                     recording periodic inspections of
                                     water sprays and baghouse
                                     monitoring for affected facilities
                                     that commence construction,
                                     modification, or reconstruction on
                                     or after April 22, 2008.
                                    Add recordkeeping requirements for
                                     each affected facility
                                     demonstrating compliance with the
                                     Lime Manufacturing NESHAP baghouse
                                     monitoring requirements.
Sec.   60.676(d)..................  Remove reference to upper limits on
                                     scrubber pressure and liquid flow
                                     rate.
Sec.   60.676(f) and (g)..........  Edit to conform to wet material
                                     processing exemption and/or
                                     relevant opacity limits.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   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 to subpart OOO............  Move to end of subpart OOO, shorten
                                     to include only exceptions to the
                                     General Provisions, and update
                                     comments.
Table 2 to subpart OOO............  Add table to specify the stack PM
                                     limits and testing/monitoring
                                     requirements for affected
                                     facilities based on applicability
                                     dates.
Table 3 to subpart OOO............  Add table to specify the fugitive
                                     opacity limits and testing/
                                     monitoring requirements for
                                     affected facilities based on
                                     applicability dates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19297]]

A. What are the final emission limits for NMPP (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
OOO)?

    For affected facilities that commence construction, modification, 
or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, the final emission limits 
are being promulgated as proposed. This final rule requires a 
particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.032 grams per dry standard 
cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.014 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf)), for affected facilities with capture systems \1\ (i.e., 
affected facilities with stack emissions) and eliminates the stack 
opacity limit for dry control devices. Baghouses that control emissions 
from only an individual, enclosed storage bin are exempt from the PM 
limit but must meet a final stack opacity limit of 7 percent. A 
fugitive emission limit of 7 percent opacity is required for all types 
of affected facilities with fugitive emissions, except for crushers 
without capture systems which have a fugitive emission limit of 12 
percent opacity. Fugitive emissions \2\ can be present when emissions 
are not captured (e.g., at affected facilities without capture systems) 
or when the capture system is not completely effective in capturing and 
transporting emissions to a control device (such as a baghouse or wet 
scrubber).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Capture system'' is defined in subpart OOO as ``the 
equipment (including enclosures, hoods, ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) 
used to capture and transport particulate matter generated by one or 
more affected facilities to a control device.''
    \2\ Fugitive emission'' is defined in subpart OOO as 
``particulate matter that is not collected by a capture system and 
is released to the atmosphere at the point of generation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission limits for affected facilities that commenced 
construction, modification, or reconstruction before April 22, 2008, 
remain unchanged. As in the original NSPS, affected facilities with 
capture systems must meet a stack PM emissions limit of 0.05 g/dscm 
(0.022 gr/dscf) and affected facilities with fugitive emissions must 
meet opacity limits of 15 percent (for crushers without capture 
systems) and 10 percent for all other types of affected facilities with 
fugitive emissions.
    An alternative set of emission limits is available for affected 
facilities enclosed in buildings. These building emission limits are 
being promulgated as proposed. Plants must either comply with the 
emission limits stated above for each affected facility located in the 
building, or alternatively, comply with the emission limits for the 
building enclosing the affected facility. The building emission limits 
are as follows:
     Fugitive emissions from the building openings (except for 
vents) must not exceed 7 percent opacity; and
     Vents (as defined in Sec.  60.671) in the building must 
meet the applicable stack emission limits. A building vent PM limit of 
0.014 gr/dscf is required if the vent discharges emissions from an 
affected facility that commenced construction, modification, or 
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. A building vent PM limit of 
0.022 gr/dscf and an opacity limit of 7 percent is required if the vent 
discharges emissions from an affected facility that commenced 
construction, modification, or reconstruction before April 22, 2008.

B. How is EPA amending subpart OOO applicability and definitions?

    Synthetic gypsum. Consistent with the proposal preamble 
clarification that synthetic gypsum is covered by subpart OOO, we are 
amending the definition of ``nonmetallic mineral'' to include ``gypsum 
(natural or synthetic)'' in place of ``gypsum.''
    Wet material processing. As proposed, we are adding two definitions 
and making other amendments to exempt from subpart OOO wet material 
processing operations that have no potential for PM emissions. 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. We also are adding a definition of 
``saturated material'' to describe the type of material intended to be 
exempted from this final 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 are exempting 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 through 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 processing plant from the mine, 
material that is wet from washing, material with a high percentage 
moisture (considering mineral type), etc.
    Grizzlies. As proposed, we are amending the definition of 
``screening operation'' to clarify that all grizzlies associated with 
truck dumping and static (non-agitating) grizzlies are not subpart OOO 
affected facilities.
    Crushers. We are adding the proposed definition of ``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. The new definition clarifies that crushers and 
grinding mills do not include equipment that simply breaks up clumps of 
material (e.g., certain deagglomerators, slicers or shredders 
processing material that has become stuck together naturally or during 
handling/processing) but does not further reduce the size of the 
material.

C. What are the final testing requirements for subpart OOO?

    Subpart OOO requires NMPP to conduct an initial performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the relevant stack or fugitive emission 
limits.
    Stack testing. 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). As proposed, we are adding EPA Method 5I (40 CFR part 
60, Appendix A-3)--``Determination of Low Level Particulate Matter 
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in Sec.  60.675(e)(3) 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 such 
as, but not limited to, storage bins and loading stations).
    Stack opacity must be measured with EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-4) for affected facilities with a stack opacity limit. As 
proposed, we are reducing 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

[[Page 19298]]

stations that operate for less than 1 hour at a time.
    Fugitive testing. The opacity from affected facilities with 
fugitive emissions must be measured with EPA Method 9 (though the 
duration of Method 9 readings is reduced in some cases as discussed 
below). As proposed, this final rule requires a 30-minute fugitive 
Method 9 test duration (five 6-minute averages) for all affected 
facilities with fugitive emissions. Compliance with the applicable 
fugitive emissions limit must be based on the average of the five 6-
minute averages recorded during the 30 minutes. A single visible 
emission observer is allowed to conduct observations for up to three 
subpart OOO emission points at a time (including stack and vent 
emission points) provided that the three criteria in Sec.  60.675(e)(2) 
are met. The third criterion was changed from proposal to state that 
none of the three readings taken during each 15 second period can equal 
or exceed the applicable standard. If this occurs, the observer must 
stop taking readings for all three points and focus on the one that 
equaled or exceeded the applicable standard.
    The proposed rule would have required repeat Method 9 performance 
testing (30-minute test) once every 5 years for affected facilities 
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after 
April 22, 2008, with fugitive emissions that are controlled by water 
carryover or other means (e.g., enclosures). This 5-year repeat testing 
requirement is being promulgated as proposed, except that affected 
facility fugitive emissions controlled by water carryover from upstream 
water sprays that are inspected according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.674(b) and Sec.  60.676(b) of subpart OOO are exempt from the 5-year 
repeat testing requirement.
    Buildings. Subpart OOO contains an optional compliance method that 
allows emissions measurement from the building instead of each affected 
facility within a building. As proposed, we are replacing the former no 
VE limit and procedure for measuring fugitive emissions from building 
openings (a 75 minute Method 22 test) with a 7 percent opacity limit 
measured using a 30-minute EPA Method 9 test. Compliance with the 7 
percent opacity limit will be demonstrated through initial testing. 
Buildings that previously demonstrated compliance with the former 
Method 22 no VE limit through performance testing are not required to 
be retested to show compliance with today's Method 9 opacity limit 
unless an affected facility for which construction, modification, or 
reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008, is located inside 
the building.
    Seasonal shut downs. As proposed, we are adding Sec.  60.675(i) to 
subpart OOO to allow plants, with approval from the appropriate 
permitting authority, to postpone initial performance testing until 60 
calendar days after resuming operation following a seasonal shut down 
of an affected facility. A ``seasonal shut down'' is defined as the 
``shut down of an affected facility for a period of at least 45 
consecutive days due to weather or seasonal market conditions''.

D. What are the final monitoring requirements for subpart OOO?

    Monitoring for fugitive emissions limits. Fugitive emissions from 
subpart OOO affected facilities are often controlled by wet 
suppression. In wet suppression systems, water (with or without 
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 instead of or 
in addition to water sprays or water carryover. Subpart OOO does not 
specify any particular technique for reducing fugitive emissions. 
Rather, subpart OOO specifies fugitive emission limits that must be 
met. Continuous compliance requirements for wet suppression systems are 
addressed in subpart OOO due to the prevalence of wet suppression as a 
control technique for NMPP.
    As proposed, monthly periodic inspections of wet suppression water 
sprays are required for affected facilities with wet suppression that 
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after 
April 22, 2008. The periodic inspections (which are specified in Sec.  
60.674(b) and Sec.  60.676(b)) apply for affected facilities with 
fugitive emissions that are controlled by either: (a) Direct water 
sprays located at the affected facility, or (b) water carryover from 
upstream water sprays (for affected facilities exempted from the 5-year 
repeat performance test under Sec.  60.674(b)(1)). The purpose of the 
inspections is to ensure that water is flowing to the discharge water 
spray nozzles in the wet suppression system. If, during an inspection, 
water is not flowing properly, corrective action must be initiated 
within 24 hours and completed as expediently as practical. The 
requirement to complete corrective action as expediently as practical 
was added in response to public comment. We added Sec.  60.674(b)(1) to 
this final rule to specify the testing exemption and to require NMPP to 
designate (at the time of the initial performance test) which upstream 
water spray(s) will be periodically inspected for water flow to 
indicate continuous compliance with the fugitive emission limits for 
each affected facility being exempted from the 5-year repeat 
performance testing.
    Baghouse monitoring. As proposed, the 7 percent stack opacity limit 
is being replaced with ongoing monitoring for baghouses on affected 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or after April 22, 2008. This final rule contains three options for 
monitoring of baghouses on affected facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 
2008. The first two options are being promulgated as proposed. The 
third option is being added to the final standards (as a result of 
public comments) for affected facilities subject to the Lime 
Manufacturing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP).
    The first option is quarterly VE inspections using EPA Method 22 
for 30 minutes. The VE inspections would be successful if no visible 
emissions are observed. If any VE are observed, corrective action must 
be initiated within 24 hours to restore the baghouse to normal 
operation. If the baghouse normally displays some VE, a different 
baghouse-specific success level for the VE inspections (other than no 
VE) can be established by conducting a PM test simultaneously with a 
Method 22 test to determine what constitutes normal VE from the 
baghouse when it is in compliance with the subpart OOO PM concentration 
limit. The revised VE inspection success level must be incorporated 
into the operating permit.
    The second option is the use of a bag leak detection system. The 
bag leak detection system must be installed and operated according to 
Sec.  60.674(d).
    For affected facilities subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, 
we are offering a third option. This option is complying with the 
continuous compliance requirements for baghouses on processed stone 
handling operations in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA).
    Wet scrubber monitoring. As proposed, we are revising Sec.  
60.676(d) to delete reference to scrubber pressure gain and the upper 
limit for scrubber liquid flow. Increases in these parameters would 
only increase

[[Page 19299]]

scrubber PM removal efficiency and thus reduce PM emissions. We are not 
making any further changes to the wet scrubber monitoring requirements 
at this time because the Agency proposed Performance Specification 17 
(PS-17) and Procedure 4 for continuous parameter monitoring systems 
(which include pressure and liquid flow measurements) on October 9, 
2008 (73 FR 59956). Following public comment and promulgation of PS-17 
and Procedure 4, the procedures and requirements in PS-17 and Procedure 
4 are intended to supersede the wet scrubber monitoring language in 
subpart OOO for affected facilities with wet scrubbers installed on or 
after October 9, 2008.

E. What are the final notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements for subpart OOO?

    Notifications and reports. We are simplifying the notification 
requirements in subpart OOO in several ways as proposed. We are 
deleting reference to Sec.  60.7(a)(2) in Sec.  60.676(h) to be 
consistent with changes made to subpart A. We are also adding 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. We are adding 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. We are changing Sec.  60.675(g) to allow a 7-day advance 
notification for performance tests involving only Method 9.
    What are the final recordkeeping requirements for subpart OOO? As 
proposed, we are requiring NMPP to keep records of periodic inspections 
performed on water sprays (monthly checks that water is flowing) or 
baghouses (quarterly Method 22 readings) controlling affected 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or after April 22, 2008. Each periodic inspection must be recorded 
in a logbook which may be maintained in written or electronic format. 
The logbook entries include inspection dates and any corrective actions 
taken. The logbook must be kept onsite and either a hard copy or 
electronic copy (whichever is requested) made available to EPA or 
delegated authority upon request.
    Plants opting to use bag leak detection systems in lieu of periodic 
VE inspections for baghouses will be required to keep the records 
specified in Sec.  60.676(b)(2). Plants opting to follow the continuous 
compliance requirements of Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 must keep the 
records specified in Sec.  63.7132(a)(3) and (b) of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA. According to Sec.  60.7(f), records are required to be 
retained for a period of 2 years.

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses on Subpart OOO

    We received a total of 26 comments from NMPP, industry trade 
associations, and State environmental agencies during the public 
comment period for the proposed amendments to subpart OOO. Several 
changes are being made to these final amendments in response to these 
public comments. The major comments leading to rule changes and our 
responses are summarized in the following sections. Along with comments 
offering suggested changes, we received a number of comments offering 
support for the amendments to subpart OOO. We received only supportive 
comments for many of the proposed amendments including: omitting the 
stack opacity limit for new affected facilities (except for baghouses 
controlling individual enclosed storage bins), exempting static 
grizzlies, eliminating upper limits on wet scrubber liquid flow and 
pressure drop, allowing the use of Method 5I as a PM test method, 
reducing the Method 9 stack testing time for storage bins and loadouts 
that operate less than one hour at a time, and specifying that 
compliance is based on the average of the five 6-minute averages 
recorded during the 30 minute Method 9 tests for affected facilities 
with fugitive emissions. These supporting comments are not included in 
this preamble. A complete summary of all the comments received during 
the comment period and responses thereto can be found in the docket for 
the final amendments and new standards (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
1018). The docket also contains further details on the analyses 
summarized in the responses below.

A. Need for New Source Performance Standards

    Comment: In addition to other comments requesting exemption of the 
salt industry from subpart OOO (which are addressed in the Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses document), one commenter requested that 
EPA exempt salt operations (rock salt and sodium chloride) from subpart 
OOO because most salt operations do not operate crushers or grinders 
above ground. The commenter stated that subpart OOO was intended to 
cover open pit mining and noted that the applicability prerequisite of 
the rule is that a facility must have a crusher or grinder. The 
commenter stated that underground mines are exempt from the rule 
(assuming there are no secondary or tertiary crushers above ground) yet 
also have crushers/grinders located underground and can have screening 
and process equipment above ground that produce emissions. The 
commenter explained that salt is produced at three types of facilities 
(solution mines, solar production, and traditional underground mines). 
Some of the commenter's plants are subject to subpart OOO because they 
operate small above ground crushers (which are located indoors) for one 
production line at solution and solar operations. The commenter stated 
that many salt operations are enclosed in buildings and operate with 
dust collectors for product quality reasons and to reduce dust inside 
the building.
    Response: The 1997 NSPS action (62 FR 31351, June 9, 1997) added 
Sec.  60.670(a)(2) to subpart OOO to clarify that the provisions of 
subpart OOO do not apply to all facilities located in underground mines 
and plants without crushers or grinding mills. It was noted in the 
proposal and promulgation notices for the 1997 NSPS action that 
emissions from crushers or other facilities in underground mines are 
vented in the general mine exhaust and cannot be distinguished from 
emissions from drilling and blasting operations which are mining 
operations not covered by the standards. It was the original intent of 
the NSPS that stand-alone screening operations at plants without 
crushers or grinding mills are not subject to the NSPS (i.e., because 
the original definition of ``nonmetallic mineral processing plant'' 
refers to equipment used to crush or grind nonmetallic minerals). 
Consistent with the intent of the original NSPS and the 1997 
clarifications, we are amending Sec.  60.670(a)(2) to clarify that 
plants without crushers or grinding mills above ground are not subject 
to subpart OOO. Plants with any above ground crushers or grinding mills 
(including those located in buildings) for which construction, 
modification, or reconstruction commenced after August 31, 1983, remain 
subject to the provisions of subpart OOO. Subpart OOO specifically 
addresses emissions from affected facilities located in buildings and 
provides options for measurement of these emissions.

[[Page 19300]]

B. Emission Limits

    Comment: Commenters questioned the basis for revising the emission 
limits because the technology representing BDT has not changed. The 
commenters argued that EPA is taking away the margin of compliance 
available for facilities using the identified NSPS technologies.
    Several commenters objected to the proposed stack PM limit of 0.014 
gr/dscf and questioned the basis for the revision. Some commenters 
agreed with the conclusion that setting a PM limit below 0.014 gr/dscf 
could result in a level of control that may be difficult to continually 
achieve.
    Many commenters questioned the technical reasons for reducing the 
fugitive emission limits from 15 to 12 percent opacity for crushers and 
from 10 to 7 percent opacity for other affected facilities. Some 
commenters questioned if reducing the fugitive emission limits is 
necessary, given EPA's conclusion that the potential benefits cannot be 
quantified and are likely to be similar to the current standard. 
Commenters were particularly concerned with the proposed 7 percent 
fugitive opacity limit and stated that an opacity standard within the 
7.5 percent positive error of Method 9 is basically a ``no VE'' 
standard. Two commenters referred to Method 9 error as high as 14 
percent in the document ``Air Pollution Control Techniques for Non-
Metallic Minerals Industry'' (EPA-450/3-82-014, August 1982). Other 
commenters noted that it would make more sense for the limits to be in 
increments of 5 percent since this is how opacity is read. The 
commenters supported basing compliance on the average of the five 6-
minute averages collected during the 30-minute opacity test. Two 
commenters supported the proposed fugitive emission limits.
    Response: 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 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. The subpart OOO 
emission limits were established with the 1983 proposal and 1985 
promulgation of subpart OOO, based on review of the performance of 
technology and emissions data collected in the late 1970s. The emission 
limits have not been reevaluated based on actual emissions testing in 
over 20 years because the first action taken with respect to the NMPP 
NSPS, completed on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31351), considered provisions 
other than the emission limits.
    For purposes of this (2008-2009) NSPS review, we reviewed more 
recent actual emissions data from hundreds of emissions tests conducted 
on a variety of subpart OOO affected facilities in many NMPP industries 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018-0085). These data revealed that the vast majority 
of affected facilities perform substantially better than the current 
subpart OOO emission limits. Therefore, we determined that it was 
appropriate in this NSPS review to reduce the subpart OOO emission 
limits for affected facilities commencing construction, modification, 
or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. Further, because the 
majority of existing affected facilities for which we have data meet 
the revised standards (as discussed below), EPA concludes that all new 
affected facilities should also be able to achieve them.
    For affected facilities commencing construction, modification, or 
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, we are retaining (as 
proposed) the stack emission limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and we are 
replacing the associated 7 percent stack opacity limit with a 
continuous monitoring requirement. For affected facilities commencing 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 
2008, we are promulgating the proposed fugitive emission limits of 12 
percent opacity for crushers without capture systems and 7 percent 
opacity for all other types of affected facilities with fugitive 
emissions (including fugitive emissions from grinding mills, screening 
operations, bucket elevators, belt conveyors, bagging operations, 
storage bins, enclosed truck or railcar loading stations, and any other 
affected facility).
    The stack emissions data we reviewed to set the revised limits 
included over 300 PM stack tests from 1990 and later. Ninety-one 
percent of the PM stack test results achieved 0.014 gr/dscf or lower. 
The control devices used for the affected facilities tested included 
primarily baghouses and wet scrubbers. In addition, we reviewed more 
than 700 fugitive emissions tests. For crushers without capture 
systems, 98 percent of the fugitive emissions test averages were at or 
below 12 percent opacity and 99 percent of the fugitive emissions test 
averages for other types of affected facilities were at or below 7 
percent opacity. The fugitive emission limits are most commonly met 
through use of wet suppression (as needed), water carryover, or with a 
partial enclosure. Affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, can employ 
the same control devices or fugitive emission reduction measures for 
which test data were reviewed to meet the revised emission limits, 
except that the small fraction of marginally performing controls would 
no longer be acceptable for new, modified, or reconstructed affected 
facilities. The small fraction of existing marginally performing 
controls can be represented by the fraction of test data above the 
revised emission limits (i.e., less than 10 percent of data, including 
data from controls that failed to meet the original NSPS limits but 
were later retested and met the limits). Such controls will no longer 
be acceptable for new, modified, or reconstructed affected facilities. 
This is consistent with the goal of NSPS review to reflect improvements 
in methods for reducing emissions. In short, because the vast majority 
of existing affected facilities for which we have data are achieving 
these revised standards, EPA has concluded that all new affected 
facilities should be able to achieve these revised standards as well. 
We have no reason to believe that new affected facilities could not 
meet the revised standards.
    We disagree with assertions that the revised limits erase any 
margin for error or fail to account for variability. To the contrary, 
significant percentages of the test data achieved substantially lower 
limits than are being promulgated for subpart OOO. Thus, a workable 
compliance margin and provision for variability remains.
    The emission reduction associated with lowering the fugitive 
emission limits is not quantifiable because no reduction in mass 
emission rate can be determined from opacity measurements. However, 
that does not mean that there is no environmental benefit. The 
environmental benefit is that higher emissions from marginally 
performing controls (as described above) will no longer be acceptable 
for fugitive emissions from affected facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 
2008.
    Although opacity is read in 5 percent increments, the test average 
resulting from averaging the opacity observations is not limited to 
increments of 5 percent opacity. In addition to reducing the fugitive 
opacity limits, we are also specifying in Sec.  60.675(c)(3) that the

[[Page 19301]]

duration of the Method 9 observations must be 30 minutes (five 6-minute 
averages) and that compliance with the fugitive emission limits must be 
based on the average of the five 6-minute averages (which is equivalent 
to the test average). Commenters unanimously supported this averaging 
procedure.
    Regarding the 7.5 percent error mentioned in Method 9 and the 14 
percent error reflected in EPA-450/3-82-014, we note that these error 
values are based on 6-minute average opacity results and represent 
exceptions rather than norms. Therefore, we disagree that setting an 
opacity standard below 7.5 percent is equivalent to establishing a ``no 
visible emission'' standard. We further note that the averaging 
procedure specified in Sec.  60.675(c)(3) requires averaging of more 
than 6 minutes of observations which would dampen the effect of any 
errors.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the rule language 
in Sec.  60.672(f) regarding the limit for a baghouse controlling only 
an individual enclosed storage bin that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. The 
commenter, and another commenter, supported retaining the 7 percent 
opacity limit for such baghouses. Another commenter suggested that 
additional rows be added to Table 2 to illustrate the various scenarios 
to replace the footnotes and exceptions.
    Response: As proposed, the revisions to subpart OOO specify that a 
baghouse controlling only an individual enclosed storage bin is exempt 
from the stack PM concentration limit but must meet a 7 percent opacity 
limit. The 7 percent opacity limit is being retained for baghouses 
controlling only an individual enclosed storage bin that commences 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 
2008, because such baghouses have no applicable PM concentration 
requirements. We have modified the wording in Sec.  60.672(f) to 
clarify this intent.
    We requested comment in the preamble to the proposed rule on 
whether the addition of Tables 2 and 3 to subpart OOO helped to improve 
the readability of the rule and helped to distinguish between the stack 
and fugitive emission limits. We considered adding rows to the proposed 
Table 2 to subpart OOO to address the exceptions noted in the table 
footnotes as suggested by one commenter. However, we found the 
resulting table to be more cumbersome and difficult to read than the 
proposed table with footnotes. Given that we only received one comment 
regarding the tables, we concluded that the proposed tables are 
acceptable to most stakeholders and have chosen not to overhaul the 
rows of Table 2 to subpart OOO to prevent confusion. However, we 
clarified the language in Sec.  60.672(f) cited in footnote ``a'' of 
Table 2 to subpart OOO and corrected paragraph number references.
    Affected facilities using wet dust suppression or other fugitive 
emission reduction measures (but no control device) are subject to the 
fugitive emission limits. The stack emission limits apply for affected 
facilities using capture systems, which by definition in Sec.  60.671, 
transport PM to a control device. It has come to our attention that 
further clarification may be needed for circumstances when fugitive 
emissions escape from a capture system that directs emissions to a 
control device such as a baghouse or wet scrubber. Therefore, we are 
modifying the title of the proposed Table 3 to subpart OOO and Sec.  
60.672(b) to reflect that fugitive emissions escaping from a capture 
system prior to reaching the control device are subject to the 
applicable fugitive emission limits (and associated compliance 
demonstration requirements) in Table 3 to subpart OOO. The captured 
emissions routed to the control device would be subject to the 
applicable stack emission limits (and associated compliance 
demonstration requirements) in Table 2 to subpart OOO. We are also 
rewording the proposed column headings in Table 3 to subpart OOO so the 
table contains language from the original NSPS sections Sec.  60.672(b) 
and (c) that distinguished between crushers without capture systems 
(e.g., crushers controlled by wet suppression only) and other affected 
facilities including crushers with capture systems as defined in Sec.  
60.671 that allow fugitive emissions to escape (e.g., capture systems 
not completely effective in transporting emissions to the control 
device). These clarifications are consistent with the original 
structure and intent of subpart OOO as described in the original 1983 
proposal notice (see 48 FR 39571-39573 and 39577, August 31, 1983), the 
1985 promulgation notice (see 50 FR 31335 and 31339, August 1, 1985), 
and in the 1983 Background Information Document (EPA-450/3-83-001b).
    Comment: Multiple commenters supported the replacement of the 
Method 22 no VE standard for building openings with a 7 percent 
fugitive opacity limit at the inlet and outlet points of a building 
measured using a 30-minute Method 9 test with compliance determined as 
stated in Sec.  60.675(c)(3). Some commenters argued that the limit 
should be greater than 7 percent due to the error in Method 9 
measurements. The commenters suggested that the fugitive opacity limit 
be tied to that of the equipment with the highest allowable standard 
located within the structure since the purpose of the structure is 
typically for noise control or aesthetics and not emissions control. An 
additional commenter stated that NSPS sources inside buildings should 
have the option of either doing a performance test on the equipment 
using the 30-minute Method 9, or testing the ingress and egress of the 
building.
    Two commenters suggested that building vents be exempt from the 
stack PM concentration limit and associated performance testing (like 
baghouses controlling emissions from individual enclosed storage bins). 
The commenters stated that building vents and individual storage bin 
baghouses have the same 7 percent opacity limit, and both are likely to 
have very low velocities. The commenters noted there is the potential 
for problems with isokinetic conditions, and long testing times to get 
the required sample volume even with Method 5I. With a 7 percent 
opacity limit and low velocities, the commenters stated that actual 
mass emissions from a vent would be very low. The commenters noted that 
vents are also more likely to be in locations difficult to access 
without potential safety concerns.
    Response: The emission limits specified for buildings are part of 
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 have the option of measuring 
emissions from the building. For example, NMPP have the option of 
conducting a 30-minute Method 9 on fugitive emissions from each of the 
affected facilities within a building, or conducting a 30-minute Method 
9 on the building openings (i.e., ingress and egress).
    Emissions can escape buildings in two ways: (1) As fugitive 
emissions through an unpowered building opening, or (2) as emissions 
discharged through a powered building vent. ``Vent'' is defined in 
Sec.  60.671 as, ``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.'' Because there are two ways emissions can escape from 
buildings, two sets of

[[Page 19302]]

emission limits make up the optional building compliance procedure:
    (1) A 7 percent opacity limit for fugitive emissions from building 
openings, and/or
    (2) The subpart OOO stack emission limits for building vents (i.e., 
0.022 gr/dscf and 7% opacity for affected facilities between August 31, 
1983, and April 22, 2008; and 0.014 gr/dscf and ongoing monitoring for 
affected facilities on or after April 22, 2008).
    The 7 percent opacity limit for fugitive emissions from building 
openings (measured with a 30-minute Method 9 test) is being promulgated 
as proposed. The 7 percent opacity limit was proposed as a change from 
the former no VE limit (measured with EPA Method 22) for building 
openings. We disagree that the building fugitive opacity limit should 
be higher than 7 percent due to Method 9 measurement error, because, as 
stated previously, the measurement errors referenced by commenters were 
atypical. We also disagree that the building fugitive limit should be 
tied to that of the affected facility with the highest allowable limit. 
The 7 percent opacity limit corresponds to the lower of the two 
fugitive emission limits for affected facilities that may be housed in 
a building. The 7 percent fugitive opacity limit also corresponds to 
the 7 percent stack opacity limit required for building vents for 
affected facilities that commenced construction, modification, or 
reconstruction between August 31, 1983, and April 22, 2008.
    We disagree with the commenters that building vents should be 
exempted from the stack PM concentration limit and associated initial 
performance testing. Building vents are treated differently from 
baghouses controlling individual enclosed storage bins for several 
reasons. First, testing of building vents is an optional method for 
demonstrating compliance. Facilities may either measure emissions from 
each affected facility within a building, or opt to measure emissions 
from the building. Second, the revisions to subpart OOO contain rule 
language in Sec.  60.675(e)(4) specifically to address low flow rate 
conditions from building vents. No comments were received on the 
proposed language and Sec.  60.675(e)(4) is being promulgated as 
proposed. Third, Method 5I is an optional test method added to subpart 
OOO to address low flows. Use of Method 5I is not limited to the 
subpart OOO affected facility examples stated in Sec.  60.675(e)(3). 
Method 5I may be used for building vents if it is helpful. Given the 
number of options available for determining flow rate and testing PM, 
the stack PM limit has been retained for building vents.

C. Applicability and Definitions

    Comment: Several commenters supported exemption of wet material 
processing operations from subpart OOO and the proposed definition of 
``saturated material.'' However, one commenter noted that it may be 
difficult to determine what is saturated. The commenter suggested that 
EPA specify in the definition of ``saturated material'' that water is 
visibly dripping from the processed material or that wet material be 
restricted to subterranean, sub-aqueous (excavated) materials.
    Response: We are promulgating the exemption for wet material 
processing operations as proposed. The intent of the definition of 
``saturated material'' is to define mineral material with sufficient 
surface moisture (excluding material wetted by wet suppression systems) 
such that PM emissions are not generated from processing of the 
material through screening operations, bucket elevators and belt 
conveyors. We disagree that water must be visibly dripping from 
nonmetallic minerals in order for there to be sufficient surface 
moisture to eliminate the potential for PM emissions from the handling 
of the material. Therefore, we have not incorporated the commenters 
suggested addition to the definition (nor have we restricted wet 
material to subterranean, sub-aqueous excavated materials).

D. Testing Requirements

    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that repeat fugitive emissions 
testing every 5 years for affected facilities without direct water 
sprays is unnecessary. The commenters noted that carryover moisture has 
been demonstrated to control fugitive emissions as acknowledged in AP-
42 Chapter 11.9.2 for Crushed Stone Processing.
    The commenters stated that the number of sources controlled by 
water carryover or with partial enclosure that would be required to 
conduct repeat tests every 5 years would be enormous, posing a burden 
for industry and delegated regulatory agencies with minimal 
environmental return. The commenters stated that there is no need to 
conduct repeat tests if the affected facilities that rely on water 
carryover have initial performance tests showing compliance with the 
emission standard and monthly inspections showing that the controls 
installed at the time of initial testing continue to function as 
designed. Delegated agencies have the authority to request a Method 9 
test at any time to verify compliance if there is a concern. Some 
commenters noted that, in addition to the initial compliance test, 
companies do various inspections to verify compliance and are also 
routinely inspected by State and local regulatory agencies. One 
commenter noted that sources are observed for a short time and often 
enough to assure compliance with State regulations (without having to 
go through a time consuming testing process).
    Similarly, several commenters argued that a repeat performance test 
should not be required for affected facilities located inside buildings 
and controlled by either wet suppression or dry collection devices. In 
addition, multiple commenters stated that repeat testing is unnecessary 
for affected facilities inside buildings that do not have direct water 
sprays. The commenters noted that if initial performance testing 
conducted on these affected facilities shows compliance with the 
emission limit using the existing controls, and the proposed monthly 
inspections show that the controls are functioning, then a repeat 
Method 9 test is not necessary.
    Response: Continuous compliance requirements are included in this 
final rule for affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, as part of 
an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various Federal air 
emission regulations.\3\ As proposed, affected facilities (that 
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after 
April 22, 2008) with fugitive emissions controlled by wet suppression 
water sprays are required to conduct the initial Method 9 opacity test 
and to conduct monthly inspections of the direct water sprays according 
to Sec.  60.674(b) and Sec.  60.676(b). Repeat Method 9 testing is not 
required (and was not proposed) for affected facilities with direct 
water sprays because the monthly inspection requirements were 
determined to be adequate for NMPP to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the fugitive emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Inadequate monitoring concerns were raised by EPA in an 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published on February 
16, 2005 (70 FR 7905).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree that water carryover can be an adequate control measure 
for fugitive emissions for a number of affected facilities when 
sufficient moisture is delivered by upstream water sprays. Therefore, 
we are eliminating from this final rule the proposed 5-year repeat 
Method 9 test for affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, and have 
fugitive emissions

[[Page 19303]]

controlled by water carryover from upstream water sprays if the 
upstream water sprays are inspected according to the requirements in 
Sec.  60.674(b) and Sec.  60.676(b) of subpart OOO. In many cases, the 
upstream water spray(s) responsible for controlling fugitive emissions 
from a subpart OOO affected facility (that commences construction, 
modification, or reconstruction without water sprays on or after April 
22, 2008) will already be subject to the subpart OOO water spray 
inspection requirements in Sec.  60.674(b) and Sec.  60.676(b). 
However, there may be cases where the upstream water spray(s) 
responsible for controlling fugitive emissions from a subpart OOO 
affected facility (without water sprays) are not subject to the subpart 
OOO water spray inspection requirements (e.g., because the upstream 
affected facility with water sprays predates the April 22, 2008, 
applicability date for monitoring). Such upstream water spray(s) may 
also be monitored according to Sec.  60.674(b) and Sec.  60.676(b) by 
NMPP wishing to exempt selected affected facilities from the 5-year 
repeat testing requirements. We leave to the discretion of the NMPP and 
their permitting authority to determine which upstream water sprays 
(and whether one or more of the upstream water sprays) require 
monitoring. We have included Sec.  60.674(b)(1) in this final rule to 
specify the 5-year repeat testing exemption and to require NMPP to 
designate (at the time of the initial performance test) which upstream 
water spray(s) will be periodically inspected for water flow to 
indicate continuous compliance with the fugitive emission limits for 
each affected facility being exempted from 5-year repeat performance 
testing. It is necessary to specify which water sprays will be 
monitored initially so it will be clear (for enforcement purposes) 
which affected facilities controlled by carryover will rely on 
monitoring of upstream water sprays versus a 5-year repeat Method 9 
test.
    This final rule retains the proposed 5-year repeat Method 9 testing 
requirement for affected facilities with fugitive emissions that are 
not controlled by direct water sprays or by carryover from upstream 
water sprays. We acknowledge that some State permits contain continuous 
compliance measures and some State and local agencies may routinely 
perform inspections. However, some NMPP permits are devoid of 
continuous compliance measures and the frequency of State and local 
inspections can vary considerably for NMPP. It is appropriate for the 
NMPP NSPS to include uniform continuous compliance measures for all 
NMPP. We considered the costs and burden associated with various 
frequencies of Method 9 testing and determined that the costs of the 5-
year repeat Method 9 (30-minute test) are reasonable. Our cost analysis 
is documented in a memorandum available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018.
    We have eliminated the proposed repeat 5-year testing requirement 
for affected facilities enclosed in buildings. Buildings function as a 
means of reducing fugitive emissions in addition to any control 
measures that are applied to the affected facilities within the 
building. The final monitoring requirements for affected facilities 
located inside of buildings are the same as for affected facilities 
that are not enclosed by a building (e.g., monthly inspections to 
verify water sprays are operating or quarterly Method 22 inspections 
for dry collection devices). These monitoring requirements apply for 
affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or 
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008.
    Comment: Multiple commenters noted that EPA is proposing to allow 
Method 9 testing of up to three emission points at one time as long as 
three conditions are met. Most commenters agreed with the first two 
conditions but recommended that the third condition be eliminated if 
EPA promulgates a 7 percent fugitive opacity limit for selected 
equipment. As proposed, the third condition specified that if an 
opacity reading for any one of the three points is within 5 percent 
opacity from the applicable standard, then the observer must stop 
taking readings for the other two points and continue reading just that 
single point. Most commenters felt that the revised 7 percent opacity 
limit would prevent reading of more than one point at a time since 
opacity is read in 5 percent increments and a single reading of 5 
percent would prevent multiple point testing. One commenter requested 
that the second requirement that all points be within 70 degrees of 
each other be changed to 90 degrees.
    Response: We disagree that the three conditions for allowing Method 
9 readings of up to three emission points at one time should be 
eliminated. This provision and the three conditions were made available 
for 40 CFR part 60, subparts LL and OOO in 1999 and are well 
established alternative testing procedures. Therefore, the first two 
conditions (Sec. Sec.  60.675(e)(2)(i) and (ii)) are being promulgated 
as proposed.
    However, we do agree with commenters that the third condition 
limits the applicability of this provision for affected facilities 
subject to the revised 7 percent fugitive emission limit. To remedy 
this situation, we are changing the wording in Sec.  60.675(e)(2)(iii). 
This revision will require the observer to focus on a single emission 
point where a single opacity reading suggests the point may be close to 
or exceeds the applicable standard, but does not unduly preclude an 
observer from observing three points at a time, which is more cost 
effective. We believe that this revision strikes the appropriate 
balance between accurately determining compliance and allowing 
facilities to conduct cost-effective observations.
    Comment: Multiple commenters supported EPA's proposal to postpone 
initial performance testing until no later than 60 calendar days after 
resuming operation of the affected facility following a seasonal 
shutdown. A few commenters noted that severe winter weather and 
inventory control issues in certain parts of the country may require 
NMPP to cease operations for several months, and in their experience, 
these seasonal shut downs interfered with meeting the subpart OOO 
performance testing deadlines. Most commenters supported the proposed 
definition of ``seasonal shut down.''
    One commenter stated that the requirement to obtain prior approval 
for a seasonal shut down testing delay from the permitting authority 
may be virtually unworkable in practice. Additionally, the commenter 
suggested that a delay in performance testing should be allowed for 
reasons beyond just ``seasonal market conditions'' as denoted in the 
definition of ``seasonal shut down.'' The commenter stated that a shut 
down may occur for weather-related reasons not directly related to 
seasonal market conditions and also for cyclical reasons. According to 
the commenter, there could also be scenarios of equipment failure or 
weather-related shut down that are unforeseen and push the facility 
past the compliance demonstration date, without the sufficient notice 
to schedule around the shut down that EPA postulates. The commenter 
requested that EPA broaden section Sec.  60.675(i) to allow deferral of 
a compliance test if the deadline for the initial compliance test falls 
at a time when the facility is shut down for a period of at least 30 
days (regardless of the reason for the shut down), if the permitting 
authority is notified of the shut down and the deferral of compliance 
testing.

[[Page 19304]]

    Response: It is not possible or necessary for subpart OOO to allow 
for deferral of performance testing for every situation that could 
affect testing. Some situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case 
basis. Our intent with the proposed definition of ``seasonal shut 
down'' and associated regulatory language in Sec.  60.675(i) was to 
account for a common situation that occurs frequently in the 
nonmetallic mineral processing industries. Section 60.675(i) allows 
initial performance testing to be postponed up to 60 days after 
resuming operation following a seasonal shut down. We are revising the 
proposed definition of ``seasonal shut down'' to clarify our intent 
that shut downs eligible for the Sec.  60.675(i) provision include 
weather conditions. We consider shut downs occurring for cyclical 
reasons or current economic conditions to be seasonal market conditions 
eligible for the Sec.  60.675(i) provision as long as these conditions 
last 45 consecutive days as specified in the definition of ``seasonal 
shut down.'' It was not the intent of the Sec.  60.675(i) provision or 
the definition of ``seasonal shut down'' to include equipment failures. 
We believe testing delays due to equipment failures (which could 
include failure of processing or control equipment) should be addressed 
on a case-by-case basis. We believe equipment failures should be 
treated on a case-by-case basis because the reasons for a given 
equipment failure will vary from facility to facility and from instance 
to instance. Further, the handling of a given equipment failure will 
vary depending on such factors as how often the facility has 
experienced a failure and what the facility has done to avoid equipment 
failure.
    We maintain that prior approval of the permitting authority is 
necessary for extension of the performance testing deadline. However, 
we are not restricting the timing or form (e.g., written, verbal, e-
mail) of such approval with a formal notification procedure.

E. Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed requirement of 
monthly inspections to ensure that water is flowing to the spray 
nozzles be amended to clarify that such inspections are not required 
for equipment using wet suppression on a seasonal basis. Another 
commenter generally supported the monthly inspection requirements for 
wet suppression systems, but requested that EPA address freezing 
hazards requiring wet suppression systems to be turned off during 
winter months. The commenter noted that water sprays are often used on 
transfer points during dry months but are turned off during wet months 
when precipitation is adequate to suppress fugitive dust.
    The commenter suggested that language be included in Sec.  
60.674(b) stating that you must initiate corrective action within 24 
hours if you find that water is not flowing properly during an 
inspection of the water nozzles unless either (1) the temperature in 
the affected facility is such that water spraying would create a danger 
to personnel or equipment, or (2) the affected facility is not enclosed 
and measurable precipitation has occurred at the facility each day 
since the prior inspection. The commenter further suggested that in the 
event of a low-temperature condition preventing operation of the spray 
system or continuous precipitation eliminating the need for the spray 
system, the owner/operator should record that fact in the logbook in 
lieu of corrective action.
    Response: We recognize that some NMPP may use wet suppression on a 
seasonal or as needed basis (e.g., wet suppression may not be necessary 
to reduce fugitive emissions following a rain event in some instances). 
We also acknowledge the hazards that can be associated with wet 
suppression systems during freezing conditions for those NMPP that 
operate through winter months. Wet suppression water sprays are a 
common control measure applied to reduce fugitive emissions from NMPP 
affected facilities. The intent of the wet suppression water spray 
nozzle inspections is to indicate continuous compliance with the 
fugitive emission limits by detecting and correcting operational 
problems with the water sprays, including inoperable water sprays 
(regardless of the reasons for not operating). Affected facilities must 
operate in compliance with the subpart OOO fugitive emission limits at 
all times (except for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction as 
described in the General Provisions). Therefore, we cannot simply refer 
to vague conditions of ``temperature'' or ``measurable precipitation'' 
in subpart OOO, particularly since the duration of these conditions and 
their effect on dust suppression can be quite variable and site-
specific (e.g., a small amount of precipitation on a hot day may 
evaporate quickly and do nothing to control fugitive emissions).
    Subpart OOO does not specify that any particular control technology 
be used. Rather, subpart OOO specifies emissions limits that must be 
met by affected facilities with fugitive emissions. NMPP can meet the 
subpart OOO emission limits using whatever mechanisms they choose 
(e.g., wet suppression water sprays, measurable precipitation, water 
carryover, etc.). Regardless of the mechanism for control, the 
emissions limits must be met continuously.
    Plants must identify the control mechanisms they will use to attain 
compliance with the applicable emission limits as part of the 
construction and/or operating permitting process. Plants with wet 
suppression water sprays that intend to cease operation of their water 
sprays due to rainfall or freezing conditions should specify this in 
their permit applications and/or permits. It will be at the discretion 
of the NMPP and permitting authority as to how compliance with the 
subpart OOO emission limits will be attained when the wet suppression 
system is not operating (considering the frequency and duration of such 
events). For example, if an affected facility will be operated for 
weeks or months at a time without its wet suppression system, then the 
permitting authority may request a Method 9 test while the wet 
suppression system is turned off to verify that compliance with the 
subpart OOO emission limits will be demonstrated. Once these details 
are worked out with the permitting authority, then logbook entries 
(made pursuant to Sec. Sec.  60.674(b) and 60.676(b)) indicating the 
wet suppression system was not operating will be within the constraints 
of the facility's permit. However, plants with wet suppression that do 
not reveal during the permitting process their intent to, at times, 
cease operation of their wet suppression system (and address how 
subpart OOO compliance will be attained during such times) would be 
subject to enforcement scrutiny if their wet suppression inspection 
logbook reveals periods when the water sprays were not operated. We are 
adding Sec.  60.674(b)(2) to clarify that the logbook entry must 
identify any alternative control mechanism (e.g., rainfall) being used 
at the time of the monthly inspection.
    Comment: One commenter agreed that monthly inspection of discharge 
spray nozzles to check water flow coupled with a requirement to 
initiate corrective action within 24 hours (with each inspection and 
corrective action being recorded in a logbook) is reasonable for wet 
suppression technology. Another commenter requested that EPA set a 
deadline for completion of repairs so the wet suppression system is 
working properly (i.e., to finish what was started).
    Response: For wet suppression inspections identifying water flow 
problems, we are expanding the

[[Page 19305]]

requirement in Sec.  60.674(b) to initiate corrective action within 24 
hours (with each inspection and corrective action being recorded in a 
logbook) to also require that the corrective action must be completed 
as expediently as practical.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the baghouse monitoring 
requirements in Table 6 to the lime manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 
63, subpart AAAAA) be allowed as an alternative to the proposed subpart 
OOO baghouse monitoring requirements (i.e., quarterly 30-minute Method 
22 VE testing with corrective action within 24 hours or use of a bag 
leak detection system). The commenter noted that the lime manufacturing 
NESHAP has more stringent requirements for processed stone handling 
(PSH) units (e.g., including PSH storage bins, conveying system 
transfer points, etc.).
    The commenter stated that the lime manufacturing NESHAP requires a 
monthly Method 22 VE check. If VE are observed, within 1 hour of 
observation, one 6-minute Method 9 test is required. If the opacity 
limit is exceeded, corrective action is required in accordance with the 
operation, maintenance and monitoring plan. If no VE are observed for 6 
months, Method 22 frequency can be reduced to semi-annually, and can be 
further reduced to annually if no VE are observed during the semi-
annual check (Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA).
    The commenter noted that the lime industry has invested substantial 
resources in developing environmental management systems, including 
corrective action plans and lime plant operator training, in order to 
maintain compliance with the lime manufacturing NESHAP.
    Response: We agree that the VE observation requirements in the Lime 
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAAA) for PSH operations 
are adequate for purposes of demonstrating continuous compliance with 
subpart OOO because these requirements will ensure proper baghouse 
operation. We are adding Sec. Sec.  60.674(e) and 60.676(b)(3) to 
subpart OOO to refer to the VE observation requirements and associated 
recordkeeping language in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. For affected 
facilities subject to those requirements, the recordkeeping 
requirements in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP replace the subpart OOO 
requirements to maintain a logbook. Only affected facilities subject to 
the requirements for PSH operations in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 
are allowed to use the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP alternative to the 
subpart OOO baghouse VE inspections.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the appropriateness of Method 22 
VE inspections of baghouse-controlled sources and requested that the 
duration of the Method 22 observations be reduced from 30 to 15 minutes 
since the emission point can be viewed from one location. Another 
commenter thought the 30 minute duration for a Method 22 test was 
excessive, but supported use of Method 22 testing for monitoring 
baghouse emissions. Although a third commenter believes the proposed 
Method 22 and bag leak detector (BLD) monitoring provisions could 
trigger corrective action requirements when the 7 percent opacity 
standard is not exceeded, the commenter stated that the options as 
proposed (which include the ability to obtain site specific exceptions) 
are reasonable for baghouse technology. This commenter would not 
support a requirement that all baghouse-controlled affected facilities 
employ BLDs.
    Response: We believe that a quarterly 30-minute Method 22 (40 CFR 
part 60, Appendix A-7) is a reasonable and appropriate method for 
determining the frequency of VE from baghouses. Although the method was 
developed for measuring the frequency of fugitive emissions, it is not 
limited to fugitive emissions points. Method 22 has been applied for 
baghouse-controlled emission points in a number of permits and rules. 
The use of BLD remains an alternative to the quarterly VE observations 
in the promulgated standards.

F. Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Comment: Multiple commenters supported reducing the 30-day advance 
notice to a 7-day notice prior to performance testing for Method 9 
tests. The commenters noted that many States are already relaxing this 
requirement.
    Conversely, another commenter from a state agency requested that 
EPA retain the 30-day advance notice. The commenter stated that 7 days 
is not enough time for their regulatory staff to review the plan and 
determine if (based on site-specific circumstances) the presence of an 
investigator is required. The commenter noted that weather-related 
delays are already addressed in Sec.  60.8(d) where staff work under 
the 7-day rescheduling process.
    Response: As proposed, we are promulgating a 7-day advance notice 
prior to NMPP performance tests involving only Method 9 observations. 
We made 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, 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 believe that 7 
days is a reasonable time frame for NMPP. However, State agencies 
wishing to require a longer time period for advanced notice of Method 9 
performance testing (e.g., 30 days instead of 7 days) have the 
discretion to do so.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the logbook discussed in Sec.  
60.676(b)(1) must be made available upon request to the Administrator. 
The commenter requested that a hard copy be made available even if the 
logbook is kept electronically.
    Response: We have incorporated the commenter's suggestion to 
specify that hard copies of the logbook be made available to the 
Administrator upon request. The Administrator (or permitting authority) 
may request either a hard copy or electronic copy of the logbook for 
inspection.

G. Construction, Modification, and Reconstruction

    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify wording in the 
preamble and rule regarding applicability of the NSPS revisions. The 
commenter noted that the date of commencement of construction, 
modification, or reconstruction is of regulatory importance for NSPS 
(not the date when construction, modification, or reconstruction is 
fully completed). The commenter stated that the proposal preamble 
references to ``future'' affected facilities are confusing and should 
be replaced with the longer but more rigorous description for sources 
for which construction has commenced.
    Response: We are rewording Sec.  60.674(b), (c), and (d) and Sec.  
60.676(b)(1) to replace the word ``installed'' with the terms used in 
the General Provisions (e.g., for which construction, modification, or 
reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008). We are also 
omitting the term ``future'' and using language in the preamble to this 
final rule to clearly indicate that the date for which construction, 
modification, or reconstruction was commenced is the applicability date 
for the NSPS provisions.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed amendment to the 
like-for-like replacement language in Sec.  60.670(d)(1) to add the 
phrase ``and

[[Page 19306]]

there is no increase in the amount of emissions.'' The commenter 
requested that the version of Sec.  60.670(d)(1) that has been in 
subpart OOO since 1985 be retained. The commenter stated that since no 
replacement of equipment would ever trigger the NSPS or new source 
review modification rules without an increase in the amount of 
emissions, the effect of the proposed change would be to remove an 
exemption that had applied to the replacement of equipment of equal or 
smaller size, regardless of its effect on emissions.
    Response: As indicated in the proposal, the addition of the 
language providing that the like-for-like replacement provision is only 
available where ``there is no increase in the amount of emissions'' was 
intended as a clarification rather than a change. That is, the Agency 
interprets the existing exemption in Sec.  60.670(d)(1) as being 
limited to such circumstances where there is no increase in emissions. 
While the commenter alleges that this is a change, they have not 
identified any instance where the Agency interpreted the existing 
provision to permit like-for-like replacements where an emissions 
increase occurs (i.e., that the proposed language constitutes a change 
rather than a clarification). Accordingly, we disagree that we are 
narrowing or changing the regulation with the addition of the 
clarifying language. Moreover, contrary to the commenter's contention, 
limiting the exemption to like-for-like replacements that do not result 
in an increase in emissions does not render the like-for-like exemption 
meaningless. The provision continues to allow like-for-like 
replacements that do not increase emissions, which we believe to be the 
vast majority of cases because the replacement units must be of equal 
or smaller size (e.g., rated capacity).

H. Cost Impacts

    Comment: Several commenters argued that there are incremental costs 
associated with meeting the revised stack limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and 
requested that EPA analyze these costs. The commenters stated that 
companies operate their equipment at a lower emission rate than the 
applicable standard to have a compliance margin. Commenters stated that 
the revised stack limit of 0.014 gr/dscf would require a higher-
efficiency baghouse design and bags, resulting in incremental capital 
costs. One commenter stated that one or more of the following baghouse 
design improvements may be required: Decreased air-to-cloth ratio, 
upgraded bag material (i.e., membrane coated bags), additional baghouse 
chambers, and bag leak detectors. Commenters also stated that increased 
baghouse maintenance would be required if the tighter grain loading 
standard is implemented (e.g., more frequent bag replacement) and that 
the associated incremental costs should be considered.
    Response: We disagree with commenters that significant upgrades to 
baghouses would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.014 gr/dscf. 
Ninety-one percent of the stack tests we reviewed achieved 0.014 gr/
dscf, and many of these tests achieved 0.014 gr/dscf with a substantial 
compliance margin. A level of 0.010 gr/dscf was achieved in 86 percent 
of the tests and a level of 0.005 gr/dscf was achieved in 68 percent of 
tests. Given these test results, we concluded at proposal that control 
systems that would be installed to meet a limit of 0.014 gr/dscf would 
be the same as those installed to meet the NSPS limit of 0.022 gr/dscf. 
Because there would be no change in control technology, we concluded 
that the incremental costs would be very low or zero.
    Although we disagree (based on the available NMPP stack emissions 
data) that there are any incremental costs associated with reducing the 
stack PM emission limit from 0.022 to 0.014 gr/dscf, we evaluated the 
incremental costs suggested by commenters that could potentially be 
incurred in the event that some facilities choose to upgrade the type 
of baghouse they use for new affected facilities. Our incremental cost 
analysis is documented in a memorandum available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1018. We explored four scenarios in our costing analysis similar 
to the suggestions by commenters (a baseline scenario with a limit of 
0.022 gr/dscf and three other scenarios, A through C, each with a limit 
of 0.014 gr/dscf). As suggested by commenters, the costs of more 
frequent bag replacement were associated with scenarios A-C. We 
disagree that bag leak detectors would be required to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with a limit of 0.014 gr/dscf since the subpart 
OOO revisions allow for a less expensive method of compliance (i.e., 
quarterly VE checks), and, therefore, we did not include BLD costs in 
any of the scenarios explored. Assuming as a worst case that all 
projected facilities would elect to upgrade the type of baghouse they 
use, the 5-year nationwide incremental costs ranged from $1.1 to 1.6 
million total capital cost and $0.18 to 0.30 million total annualized 
cost. The worst case incremental cost effectiveness is less than $2,300 
per ton of PM removed. We believe these worst case costs are acceptable 
and reasonable. Therefore, we maintain that a stack limit of 0.014 gr/
dscf represents BDT for new, modified, and reconstructed NMPP affected 
facilities and this limit is being promulgated as proposed.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
Final Amendments to Subpart OOO

A. What are the impacts for NMPP?

    We are presenting estimates of the impacts for these final 
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 subpart OOO revisions and the 
current NSPS requirements of subpart OOO (i.e., baseline). The impacts 
are presented for NMPP affected facilities for which construction, 
modification, or reconstruction is expected to commence 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 final 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 revisions to the subpart OOO emission limits for affected 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or after April 22, 2008, do not reflect use of new or different 
control technologies, but are an adjustment of the limits to better 
reflect the performance of current (baseline) control technologies. For 
the most part, there is no difference in the control systems used to 
meet baseline and those that would be used to meet the revised emission 
limits for affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. Therefore, 
there would be no difference in control costs, water or solid waste 
impacts, or actual emission reductions achieved as a result of the 
revisions to the emission limits. However, as discussed previously, we 
estimated potential incremental costs of upgrades to baghouse controls 
(e.g., more frequent bag replacement, membrane coated bags, or use of a 
multi-compartment baghouse) in the event that some NMPP choose to 
operate with such upgrades. We

[[Page 19307]]

estimate the worst case potential increase in nationwide annualized 
cost associated with baghouse upgrades to be $300,000 per year. The 
effect of reducing the emission limits is to ensure that the typical 
performance of today's control systems is achieved for affected 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or after April 22, 2008. 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 tons per year (tpy)) PM. These potential emission 
reductions are overestimated because the majority of control systems 
installed on affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, would 
likely have resulted in emissions at or below the emission limits even 
in the absence of these revisions.
    There are differences in notification; testing; monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR) costs between baseline and the final 
revisions to subpart OOO. We are making some amendments to subpart OOO 
that will reduce costs and other amendments that will increase costs 
for affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or 
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. We estimate that the 
increase in nationwide annual cost associated with the MRR revisions, 
including annualized capital costs associated with performance testing, 
is about $630,000. The potential emissions reductions associated with 
the 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 final testing and monitoring revisions.
    The estimated nationwide 5-year incremental emissions reductions 
and cost impacts for these amendments are summarized in Table 2 of this 
preamble. The overall cost-effectiveness is about $1,900 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).

 Table 2--National Incremental Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for NMPP Subject to Final Standards Under 40
                            CFR Part 60, Subpart OOO (Fifth Year After Promulgation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Final revisions for affected facilities                                      Potential annual
       that commence construction,          Total capital     Total annual        emission      Potential  cost-
  modification, or reconstruction on or     cost [$1,000]   cost [$1,000/yr]     reductions       effectiveness
          after April 22, 2008                                                    [tons/yr]          [$/ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to emission limits............             1,400               300               130             2,300
Revisions to MRR requirements...........           (1,800)               630               370             1,700
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................             (400)               930               500             1,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Negative numbers appear in parentheses. There is a negative capital cost because we are reducing the costs of
  initial testing requirements by (a) allowing a 30-minute Method 9 test instead of a 1-hour test for fugitive
  emissions; and (b) by omitting the 7 percent stack opacity limit and associated initial testing from subpart
  OOO. The reduced testing costs offset the potential increase in capital cost due to baghouse upgrades.)

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts are impacts that 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 are required under this final rule. These revisions will 
not result in secondary air impacts or increase in overall energy 
demand because there is little (if any) 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 final 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 final 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 final rule on the affected industries and their consumers should 
be negligible. For more information, please refer to the economic 
impact analysis for this final rule that is in the public docket.

VI. No Final Action Taken With Respect to Subpart UUU Applicability

    As part of the proposal notice, we requested comment on the 
applicability of the NSPS for Mineral Calciners and Dryers (40 CFR Part 
60, subpart UUU) to sand reclamation processes at metal foundries. We 
proposed to amend Sec.  60.730(b) of subpart UUU to state that 
``processes for thermal reclamation of industrial sand at metal 
foundries'' are not subject to the provisions of subpart UUU. After 
further consideration, we are not taking any final action with respect 
to this proposed amendment to subpart UUU at this time.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
final 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 final rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    These final amendments to the existing standards of performance for 
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants add monitoring requirements for 
affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or

[[Page 19308]]

reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, while eliminating other 
requirements. We have revised the information collection request (ICR) 
for the existing rule.
    These final amendments to the standards of performance for NMPP for 
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 
revisions to affected facilities that commence construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, include 
changes to emission limits, elimination of the stack opacity limit, and 
addition of periodic monitoring requirements. The monitoring 
requirements include periodic inspections of water sprays and baghouse 
VE. We have minimized the burden associated with these monitoring 
requirements by selecting longer frequencies for the requirements 
(e.g., repeat tests every 5 years as opposed to annually; monthly 
inspections of water sprays as opposed to daily, etc.); minimizing 
duplication of continuous compliance measures; 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 $1,030,642 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. When this ICR is approved by 
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in 
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved 
information collection requirements contained in this final 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 impact of these 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/serv_sstd_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 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 of the 
projected new NMPP could potentially be classified as small entities 
according to the SBA small business size standards for industries 
identified as affected by today's revisions. No small entities are 
expected to incur an annualized compliance cost of more than 0.10 
percent to comply with today's action. For more information, please 
refer to the economic impact analysis that is in the public docket for 
this rulemaking.
    Although this action would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this action on 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 revisions to subpart OOO do not affect these exempted small 
plants; that is, they continue to be exempted from the standards.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the estimated expenditures for 
the private sector in the fifth year after promulgation are $0.93 
million. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of 
section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 
obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of 
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on 
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated

[[Page 19309]]

by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this final rule.

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

    This final action does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of 
specified industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

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

    This final action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this final rule 
is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because the only 
energy requirements associated with this action result from monitoring 
equipment.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided 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 VCS. We 
identified no standards for Methods 9 and 22, and none were brought to 
our attention in public comments. While the Agency identified five VCS 
as being potentially applicable to EPA Methods 5, 5I, or 17, we have 
decided not to use them in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would 
be impractical for the purposes of this final rule. See the docket of 
this final rule for the reasons for these determinations on the 
standards.

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This final rule will be effective April 28, 2009.

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, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart OOO--[AMENDED]

0
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

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

[[Page 19310]]

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 above ground; and wet material processing 
operations (as defined in Sec.  60.671).
    (b) An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of 
subparts 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 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, modification, or reconstruction 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 affected facilities 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 affected facilities 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 (natural or synthetic).
    (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

[[Page 19311]]

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 through 
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.
    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.
    Seasonal shut down means shut down of an affected facility for a 
period of at least 45 consecutive days due to weather or seasonal 
market conditions.
    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) of 
nonmetallic minerals prior to further processing or loading.
    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) Affected facilities 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 of this subpart 
apply for affected facilities with capture systems used to capture and 
transport particulate matter to a control device.
    (b) Affected facilities 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 of this subpart 
apply for fugitive emissions from affected facilities without capture 
systems and for fugitive emissions escaping 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. This exemption from 
the stack PM concentration limit does not apply for multiple storage 
bins with combined stack emissions.


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:

[[Page 19312]]

    (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 for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or after 
April 22, 2008, that uses wet suppression to control emissions from the 
affected facility must perform monthly periodic inspections to check 
that water is flowing to discharge spray nozzles in the wet suppression 
system. The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 24 
hours and complete corrective action as expediently as practical if the 
owner or operator finds that water is not flowing properly during an 
inspection of the water spray nozzles. The owner or operator 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).
    (1) If an affected facility relies on water carryover from upstream 
water sprays to control fugitive emissions, then that affected facility 
is exempt from the 5-year repeat testing requirement specified in Table 
3 of this subpart provided that the affected facility meets the 
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) The owner or operator of the affected facility conducts 
periodic inspections of the upstream water spray(s) that are 
responsible for controlling fugitive emissions from the affected 
facility. These inspections are conducted according to paragraph (b) of 
this section and Sec.  60.676(b), and
    (ii) The owner or operator of the affected facility designates 
which upstream water spray(s) will be periodically inspected at the 
time of the initial performance test required under Sec.  60.11 of this 
part and Sec.  60.675 of this subpart.
    (2) If an affected facility that routinely uses wet suppression 
water sprays ceases operation of the water sprays or is using a control 
mechanism to reduce fugitive emissions other than water sprays during 
the monthly inspection (for example, water from recent rainfall), the 
logbook entry required under Sec.  60.676(b) must specify the control 
mechanism being used instead of the water sprays.
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, 
the owner or operator of any affected facility for which construction, 
modification, or reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008, 
that uses a baghouse to control emissions must conduct quarterly 30-
minute visible emissions inspections 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, the owner or operator of the affected facility 
must initiate corrective action within 24 hours to return the baghouse 
to normal operation. The owner or operator 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). The owner or operator of the affected facility 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 A-7) to determine what constitutes normal visible 
emissions from that affected facility's 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 the permit for the affected facility.
    (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 for 
which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or 
after April 22, 2008, that uses a baghouse to control emissions may use 
a bag leak detection system. The owner or operator 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, 
the owner or operator 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, the owner or operator 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, the owner or operator 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) The owner or operator 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) The owner or operator of the affected facility must develop and 
submit to the Administrator or delegated authority for approval of a 
site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. The 
owner or operator 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;

[[Page 19313]]

    (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, the owner or operator 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, the owner or operator 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.
    (e) 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 that is 
subject to the requirements for processed stone handling operations in 
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) may 
follow the continuous compliance requirements in row 1 items (i) 
through (iii) of Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of 40 CFR part 63.


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 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), the owner or operator 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 the building encloses any affected facility that commences 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 
2008, the owner or operator of the affected facility must conduct an 
initial Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) performance test 
according to this section and Sec.  60.11.
    (2) If the building encloses only affected facilities that 
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction before April 
22, 2008, and the owner or operator has previously conducted an initial 
Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) performance test showing zero 
visible emissions, then the owner or operator has demonstrated 
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  60.672(e)(1). If the owner 
or operator has not conducted an initial performance test for the 
building before April 22, 2008, then the owner or operator 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

[[Page 19314]]

read, either of the following procedures may be used:
    (i) Use for the combined emission 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 equals or exceeds the applicable standard, 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, the 
owner or operator may determine the average gas flow rate produced by 
the power fans (e.g., from vendor-supplied fan curves) to the building 
vent. The owner or operator 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] TR28AP09.007

Where:

Ve = average building vent velocity (feet per minute);
Qf = average fan flow rate (cubic feet per minute); and
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, the owner or operator 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 the 
permitting authority, the owner or operator 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
    (ii) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons of replacement storage 
bins.
    (b)(1) Owners or operators of affected facilities (as defined in 
Sec. Sec.  60.670 and 60.671) for which construction, modification, or 
reconstruction commenced on or 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). The owner or operator must keep the logbook onsite 
and make hard or electronic copies (whichever is requested) of the 
logbook available to the Administrator upon request.
    (2) For each bag leak detection system installed and operated 
according to Sec.  60.674(d), the owner or operator 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 cause of the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
    (3) The owner or operator of each affected facility demonstrating 
compliance according to Sec.  60.674(e) by following the requirements 
for processed stone handling operations in the Lime Manufacturing 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) must maintain records of visible 
emissions observations required by Sec.  63.7132(a)(3) and (b) of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA.
    (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).

[[Page 19315]]

    (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. At the time of such change, this screening 
operation, bucket elevator, or belt conveyor becomes 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subpart A reference                 Applies to  subpart OOO                   Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 recordkeeping....  Yes.............................  Except in (a)(1) 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 standards and      Yes.............................  Except in (b) under certain
 maintenance requirements.                                                   conditions (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 emissions.
60.18, General control device...........  No..............................  Flares will not be used to comply
                                                                             with the emission limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 2 to Subpart OOO--Stack Emission Limits for Affected Facilities With Capture Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          The owner or operator
                                        The owner or operator       And the owner or         must demonstrate
              For * * *                must meet a PM limit of   operator must meet an    compliance with these
                                                * * *            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.
 commenced construction,                                                                    60.8 of this part
 modification, or reconstruction                                                          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, modification,                            enclosed storage bins).    60.8 of this part
 or reconstruction on or after April                            7 percent for dry         and Sec.   60.675 of
 22, 2008.                                                       control devices on       this subpart; and
                                                                 individual enclosed     Monitoring of wet
                                                                 storage bins.            scrubber parameters
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          60.674(a) and Sec.
                                                                                          60.676(c), (d), and
                                                                                          (e); and
                                                                                         Monitoring of baghouses
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          60.674(c), (d), or (e)
                                                                                          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 (f).
\b\ The stack opacity limit and associated opacity testing requirements do not apply for affected facilities
  using wet scrubbers.


[[Page 19316]]


                                Table 3 to Subpart OOO--Fugitive Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        The owner or operator
                                       must meet the following
                                          fugitive emissions
                                          limit for grinding
                                           mills, screening
                                          operations, bucket
                                         elevators, transfer     The owner or operator    The owner or operator
                                            points on belt      must meet the following      must demonstrate
              For * * *                   conveyors, bagging       fugitive emissions     compliance with these
                                         operations, storage     limit for crushers at    limits by conducting *
                                       bins, enclosed truck or   which a capture system            * *
                                           railcar loading         is not used * * *
                                         stations or from any
                                       other affected facility
                                         (as defined in Sec.
                                          Sec.   60.670 and
                                            60.671) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
 commenced construction,                                                                    60.11 of this part
 modification, or reconstruction                                                          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, modification,                                                       60.11 of this part
 or reconstruction on or after April                                                      and Sec.   60.675 of
 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 according to Sec.
                                                                                            60.11 of this part
                                                                                          and Sec.   60.675 of
                                                                                          this subpart within 5
                                                                                          years from the
                                                                                          previous performance
                                                                                          test for fugitive
                                                                                          emissions from
                                                                                          affected facilities
                                                                                          without water sprays.
                                                                                          Affected facilities
                                                                                          controlled by water
                                                                                          carryover from
                                                                                          upstream water sprays
                                                                                          that are inspected
                                                                                          according to the
                                                                                          requirements in Sec.
                                                                                          60.674(b) and Sec.
                                                                                          60.676(b) are exempt
                                                                                          from this 5-year
                                                                                          repeat testing
                                                                                          requirement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-9435 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P