[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45089-45095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16450]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895; FRL-9948-86-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS90


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Ferroalloys Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reconsideration; proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 30, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published the residual risk and technology review (RTR) final rule, 
establishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for the Ferroalloys Production source category. Subsequently, 
the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects 
of the final rule. The EPA is announcing reconsideration of and 
requesting public comment on three issues raised in the petitions for 
reconsideration, as detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of this action. The three issues the EPA is reconsidering and seeking 
public comment on are the following: the polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAH) compliance testing frequency for furnaces that 
produce ferromanganese (FeMn); the use of the digital camera opacity 
technique (DCOT) for determining compliance with the shop building 
opacity standards; and the use of bag leak detection systems (BLDS) on 
positive pressure baghouses. The EPA is seeking comment only on these 
three issues and will not respond to comments addressing other issues 
or other provisions of the final rule. The EPA is not proposing any 
changes to the NESHAP in this document.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 26, 
2016.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by July 18, 2016, a public hearing will be held on July 
27, 2016. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, 
contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at 
[email protected] to verify that a hearing will be held. If the EPA 
holds a public hearing, the EPA will keep the record of the hearing 
open for 30 days after completion of the hearing to provide an 
opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0895, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy information about CBI, or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you submit an 
electronic comment through http://www.regulations.gov, the EPA 
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not

[[Page 45090]]

be able to consider your comment. If you send an email comment directly 
to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and 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, EPA WJC 
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If requested by July 18, 2016, we will hold a 
public hearing on July 27, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. [Eastern Standard 
Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Research Park, NC 27711. Please contact Virginia Hunt of the Sector 
Policies and Programs Division via email at [email protected] or 
phone at (919) 541-0832 to request a hearing, register to speak at the 
hearing, or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will be held. The 
last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the hearing will be 
July 25, 2016. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of 
the hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on 
speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 
service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio 
description, we ask that you pre-register for the hearing, as we may 
not be able to arrange such accommodations without advance notice. The 
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present 
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule reconsideration 
action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who 
arrive and register. Because this hearing is held at a U.S. government 
facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared 
to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to 
gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, 
passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering 
Federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, 
American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, you 
must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal 
building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: 
Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and 
military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a 
property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon 
leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass 
to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, 
cameras may only be used outside of the building, and demonstrations 
will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA 
may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will 
not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and 
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be 
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting 
information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of 
the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for 
the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule 
as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan 
for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. 
Again, a hearing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested. 
A hearing needs to be requested by July 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action, 
contact Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-5289; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email 
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability 
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Cary Secrest, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2242A), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8661; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of this Document. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the agency taking?
    C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental cost impacts of this action?
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Issues Under Reconsideration
    A. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn
    B. DCOT Opacity Compliance Demonstration
    C. BLDS on Positive Pressure Baghouses
IV. Impacts of This Action
    A. Economic Impacts
    B. Environmental Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are 
shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NESHAP and source category                 NAICS \1\ Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroalloys Production.................................          331112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide

[[Page 45091]]

for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. 
This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
entity may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 63.1620 of Title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the agency taking?

    In this action, in response to petitions for reconsideration from 
Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and Felman Production LLC (Felman), the 
EPA is granting reconsideration of and requesting comment on the 
following three provisions of the final rule: (1) The requirement to 
conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces producing 
FeMn for the first year with the opportunity to reduce to annual 
testing after the first year; (2) the requirement to demonstrate 
compliance with the shop building opacity standards using DCOT in 
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
D7520-13; and (3) the requirement to monitor positive pressure baghouse 
emissions using BLDS. As described in detail in Section II of this 
preamble, one or both of the petitioners requested EPA reconsider these 
three provisions.
    This action is limited to the specific three provisions identified 
previously. Another issue raised by Eramet in their petition concerned 
the method we used to calculate the PAH emission limits. The EPA is 
deferring any decisions regarding whether to grant or deny 
reconsideration of this issue, and we are not reopening comment at this 
time on this issue. We will determine whether to grant or deny 
reconsideration of the PAH emission calculation issue no later than 
when we take final action on the three provisions we are reopening in 
this action.
    We will not respond to any comments addressing any other provisions 
not being reconsidered in the final Ferroalloys Production NESHAP. 
Furthermore, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the NESHAP in this 
action.

C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 
and 7607(d)(7)(B)).

D. What are the incremental cost impacts of this action?

    There are no changes to the estimated incremental cost impacts that 
were presented in the Ferroalloys Production RTR final rule published 
in the Federal Register on June 30, 2015, (80 FR 37366) in this action. 
These incremental impacts were described in detail in the Final Cost 
Impacts of Control Options Considered for the Ferroalloys Production 
NESHAP to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-
0301) and the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the Manganese 
Ferroalloys RTR Final Report (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0290).

II. Background

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage 
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from stationary major sources. In the first stage, sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) require EPA to promulgate national technology-based 
emission standards for these sources based on maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT). These standards are commonly called MACT 
standards. The EPA finalized the MACT standards for Ferroalloys 
Production on May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27450). In the second stage, section 
112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to assess the risks to human health 
remaining after implementation of the MACT standards. In addition, 
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise these 
MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies since EPA promulgated 
the original standards. The CAA requires EPA to conduct these reviews 
within 8 years of the publication of the final MACT standards. The EPA 
typically conducts the two reviews, commonly referred to as the risk 
and technology reviews (RTRs), concurrently, as we did with the 
Ferroalloys Production source category. The EPA completed the RTR for 
the Ferroalloys Production in 2015 and published a final RTR rule for 
the Ferroalloys Production source category in the Federal Register on 
June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37366), which included, among other things, the 
following:
     Revisions to the emission limits for particulate matter 
(PM) from stacks for the electric arc furnaces (EAF), metal oxygen 
refining (MOR) processes, and crushing and screening operations, to 
minimize PM emissions from these units;
     Emission limits for four previously unregulated hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, mercury, and 
PAH;
     Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using 
effective, enhanced local capture, and duct the captured emissions to 
control devices;
     An average opacity limit of 8 percent during a full 
furnace cycle, and a maximum opacity limit of 20 percent for the 
average of any two consecutive 6-minute periods, to ensure effective 
capture and control of process fugitive emissions;
     A requirement to conduct opacity observations using the 
DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating 
furnace and each MOR operation for at least 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, 
if all tests are compliant, facilities can decrease to monthly opacity 
observations;
     A requirement to use BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all 
furnace baghouses; and
     A requirement to conduct periodic performance testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the stack emission limits for the various 
HAP, including a requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 
months for furnaces producing FeMn for the first year with the 
opportunity to reduce to annual testing after the first year.
    Following promulgation of the final rule, the EPA received two 
petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the NESHAP 
pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA received a petition dated 
August 25, 2015, from Eramet, and a petition dated August 28, 2015, 
from Felman. In the petition submitted by Eramet, the company requested 
that the EPA reconsider the following provisions: (1) The requirement 
to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces 
producing FeMn; (2) the requirement to demonstrate compliance weekly 
with shop building opacity limits using the DCOT in accordance with 
ASTM D7520-13; and (3) the PAH emission limits for existing furnaces 
producing FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn). In addition, the company 
requested a stay of 90 days from the effective date of the final 
amendments pending completion of the reconsideration proceeding. In the 
petition submitted by Felman, the company stated that they support and 
adopt the petition submitted by Eramet and requested reconsideration of 
the requirement to use BLDS to monitor emissions from positive pressure 
baghouses. Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket (see EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0895).

[[Page 45092]]

    On November 5, 2015, the EPA sent letters to the petitioners 
granting reconsideration of the PAH compliance testing frequency issue 
raised by Eramet and the use of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses 
raised by Felman. In those letters, the EPA said we were continuing to 
review the other issues and intend to take final action on those issues 
no later than the date we take final action on the PAH testing 
frequency and BLDS issues. The agency also stated in the letters that a 
Federal Register action would be issued initiating the reconsideration 
process for the issues on which the EPA is granting reconsideration, 
which is what we are doing here with publication of this action.
    In addition to the two requirements mentioned previously (i.e., 
regarding PAH testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn and the use 
of BLDSs to monitor PM emissions from positive pressure baghouses) for 
which the EPA granted reconsideration via letters, after further review 
and consideration, the EPA has also decided to grant reconsideration of 
the requirement to use DCOT in accordance with ASTM D75520-13 to 
demonstrate compliance with shop building opacity standards. However, 
for each of these three requirements, after further analyses, 
evaluation, and consideration, we continue to believe these 
requirements are appropriate. Therefore, in this action, we are not 
proposing any changes to these requirements. Instead, we are providing 
further discussion and explanation as to why we believe it is 
appropriate to maintain these requirements in the rule, providing 
additional technical information to support our decisions, and 
requesting comment on these three requirements for which the EPA is 
granting reconsideration. If a commenter disagrees with our assessment 
of these issues, we encourage the commenter to provide a detailed 
technical explanation as to why they disagree and provide supporting 
information. Furthermore, if a commenter recommends any changes to the 
three rule requirements addressed in this action, we encourage the 
commenter to describe the specific rule changes they recommend and an 
explanation as to why they recommend such changes.

III. Discussion of the Issues Under Reconsideration

A. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn

    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, which was published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 2014 (79 FR 60238), the EPA proposed an 
emission limit of 1.4 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) 
for PAHs from existing furnaces producing FeMn based on two emissions 
tests (with a total of six runs). The EPA based the limit on the only 
valid PAH data we had for FeMn producing furnaces during the 
development of the supplemental proposed rule. We received an 
additional test report in August 2014 (a few weeks before signature of 
the supplemental proposed rule) that included data from one additional 
emissions test (with three runs). However, we were not able to 
incorporate that additional data into our analyses for the supplemental 
proposal. As we explained in the supplemental proposal, we had not yet 
completed our technical review of those new data and we were not able 
to incorporate those new data into our analyses in time for the 
completion of the supplemental proposal. However, we did seek comments 
on that data.
    After publication of the supplemental proposal, we received 
additional data during the comment period that included one additional 
emissions test for PAHs, with four runs.
    In the development of the final rule, after we completed our 
technical review of all the data, we incorporated the additional data 
into our analyses such that the PAH limit for furnaces producing FeMn 
was based on four emissions tests (with a total of 13 runs). As we 
explained in the final rule preamble, the additional data we received 
just before signature of the supplemental proposal and again during the 
comment period indicated PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn 
were much higher than indicated by the data we had prior to August 
2014. For example, the PAH concentrations for furnaces producing FeMn 
in these additional test reports were over 12 times higher than in 
previous test reports submitted by Eramet (as shown in appendix A of 
the Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category document, which is available in the docket).
    To calculate the MACT floor emissions limit for the final rule, we 
incorporated all the data (13 runs) and applied our standard 99 percent 
upper prediction limit (UPL) methodology. Using the UPL methodology 
resulted in a MACT floor emissions limit of 12 mg/dscm, which was 9 
times higher than the MACT floor limit of 1.4 mg/dscm we had proposed 
in 2014.
    With regard to testing frequency, in the 2014 supplemental 
proposal, we proposed that compliance testing for PAHs from furnaces 
producing FeMn be conducted at least once every 5 years. However, as we 
explained in the final rule preamble, due to the large variation in PAH 
emissions from these furnaces during FeMn production, we required 
quarterly compliance testing for PAHs (i.e., at least one PAH 
compliance test every 3 months) for furnaces while producing FeMn in 
the final rule, with an opportunity for facilities to request decreased 
frequency of such compliance testing (e.g., to annual testing) from 
their permitting authority after the first year.
    In their petition, Eramet stated that ``without warning, in the 
final Ferroalloys NESHAP, EPA increased the compliance test frequency 
for PAH emissions from ferroalloys production by 20 times.'' 
Specifically, the petitioner asserted that in the 2014 supplemental 
proposal, the EPA proposed PAH compliance testing every 5 years, which 
the petitioners considered appropriate, and, therefore, they did not 
comment on the provision. For the 2015 final rule, the EPA increased 
the PAH compliance testing frequency to quarterly, which the 
petitioners believe is a surrogate for information collection and not 
an appropriate use of the rulemaking process. The petitioners also 
stated that the increased PAH testing frequency increases compliance 
costs (by about $75,000 for the first year) and increases penalty 
risks.
    After considering the petition from Eramet, the EPA is not 
proposing any changes to the testing frequency in this action.
    However, in consideration of the fact that the public lacked the 
opportunity to comment on the change in testing frequency, the EPA has 
granted reconsideration of this issue to provide an opportunity for 
public comment on the testing frequency. We are proposing no change to 
the quarterly testing for PAH for furnaces producing FeMn due to the 
high variability of the PAH test data and the fact that the new data 
were much higher than the previous data. The inclusion of these data 
increased the MACT emissions limit for PAHs (which was based on the 99 
percent UPL) for furnaces producing FeMn in the 2015 final rule by 
about 9 times compared to the MACT limit proposed in the 2014 
supplemental proposal. In contrast, the PAH concentrations for furnaces 
producing SiMn were only slightly higher than previous test data 
received from the facilities. Furthermore, we believe the quarterly 
testing, along with the collection of process information that a 
facility may choose to collect voluntarily, could provide data that 
would help facilities learn what factors or conditions are

[[Page 45093]]

contributing to the quantity and variation of PAH emissions. For 
example, among other things, we believe the collection and analyses of 
information about the amounts and types of input materials, types of 
electrodes used, electrode consumption rates, furnace temperature, and 
other furnace, process, or product information may help facilities 
understand what factors are associated with the higher emissions and 
could provide insight regarding how to limit these emissions. 
Furthermore, as we described in the preamble of the final rule (80 FR 
37383), if a facility decides to apply for decreased frequency of 
compliance testing from their permit authority, this type of 
information (described previously) could be helpful input for such an 
application.
    In addition, we believe initial quarterly PAH compliance testing 
will help ensure that the public is not exposed to high concentrations 
of PAH due to emissions from these facilities. By retaining frequent 
testing with the ability to reduce the frequency of testing with 
compliant results, the rule ensures adequate protection of the public 
while providing an additional incentive for the source to promptly 
achieve compliance with the new MACT emission limit.
    While we are not proposing any changes to the testing frequency for 
PAHs from FeMn furnaces, we seek comment on whether the goals of 
gaining a further understanding of factors influencing emissions, 
incentivizing prompt compliance, and ensuring minimizing public 
exposures to PAH emissions can be achieved with a slightly different 
testing frequency such as semiannual testing for 2 years with an 
opportunity to reduce frequency thereafter to annual testing.

B. DCOT Opacity Compliance Demonstration

    In the 2014 supplemental proposal), we proposed that facilities 
would need to take opacity readings for an entire furnace cycle once 
per week per furnace using Method 9 or DCOT to demonstrate compliance 
with the opacity limits. However, in the supplemental proposal, we also 
said we were seeking comments on the feasibility and practice 
associated with the use of automated opacity monitoring with ASTM 
D7520-13, using DCOT to assess the opacity of visible emissions from 
roof vents associated with the processes at each facility, and how this 
technology could potentially be included as part of the requirements in 
the NESHAP for ferroalloys production sources.
    In the final rule, we explained that after considering public 
comments, we decided to require DCOT, rather than allow its use as an 
option, and maintained the same frequency as proposed for Method 9, at 
least for the first 26 weeks. Therefore, the final rule includes a 
requirement to conduct opacity observations using the DCOT at least 
once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating furnace and 
each MOR operation for at least the first 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, if 
all tests are compliant, the final rule allows facilities to decrease 
to monthly opacity observations.
    In their reconsideration petitions, the petitioners stated the EPA 
solicited comment on the use of DCOT for determining opacity from the 
shop building in the 2014 supplemental proposal, but did not propose to 
require DCOT in accordance with ASTM D7520-13 as the sole method of 
demonstrating compliance with the opacity standard. In their 
supplemental proposal comments (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0269 and -
0272), the petitioners stated that the EPA had provided insufficient 
description of what might be required to employ DCOT on the shop 
buildings, and argued that DCOT was an unproven substitute for EPA 
Method 9 measurements. They also commented that the open roof monitors 
in the shop building create variability in plume location and 
orientation, which they believed would make DCOT infeasible or too 
costly.
    In their reconsideration petitions, the petitioners claimed that 
the referenced ASTM method expressly applies to stack openings of 7 
feet in diameter or less, whereas the shop building open roof monitors 
at the facilities stretch along the top of the roofline and are 
hundreds of feet long. They also noted that only one vendor provides 
DCOT and that the vendor would be free to charge the facilities 
whatever prices they want.
    After considering the petitions from Eramet and Felman, and after 
gathering, reviewing, and evaluating additional information, the EPA is 
not proposing any changes to the requirements for demonstrating 
compliance with the opacity limits. The EPA continues to believe it is 
appropriate to require ferroalloys production facilities to conduct 
opacity observations using the DCOT at least once per week for a full 
furnace cycle for each operating furnace and each MOR operation for at 
least the first 26 weeks. However, we are seeking comments on this DCOT 
monitoring requirement and the additional information and analyses 
which are described in the following paragraphs.
    First, we have gathered and reviewed additional information that 
shows that opacity readings using DCOT are statistically equivalent to 
EPA Method 9 opacity readings, including several studies from 
government agencies and other organizations,1 2 which 
compare Method 9 to DCOT. Each of these studies determined that DCOT is 
statistically equivalent to EPA Method 9 when measuring nonzero visible 
emissions. We have also reviewed the results of Method 301 evaluations 
where DCOT was used to measure opacity of emissions from stacks greater 
than 7 feet in diameter and exiting along rooflines (see the 
Statistical Comparison of ASTM D7520 to EPA Reference Method 9 on 
Opacity from Stacks with Diameters Over 7 Feet, by Hicks, S., et. al., 
August 28, 2015, which is available in the docket for this action). 
These Method 301 studies showed no statistical difference between the 
opacity measured using DCOT and EPA Method 9, regardless of the stack 
diameter. In addition, we have learned that ASTM International is 
currently revising the DCOT test method (ASTM D7520-13) to remove the 
provision limiting application to stacks with diameters of 7 feet or 
less. While DCOT has a record of accuracy comparable to Method 9, it 
also offers the distinct advantage of generating a permanent record of 
the observation. This will be advantageous to the facility, oversight 
authorities, and affected third parties (such as the community) if 
there is a dispute about the facility's emissions. Opacity measurement 
using DCOT offers measurements that are statistically as accurate as 
Method 9, creates a permanent record of opacity measurements, and 
presents a scientifically defensible approach for opacity 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Air Force Research Laboratory, An Alternative To EPA Method 
9--Field Validation Of The Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS): 
Results From The One-Year Regulatory Study, August 2005. AFRL-ML-TY-
TR-2006-4515.
    \2\ Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Digital Camera 
Opacity Technique: Field Test Evaluation Report, Technical Update, 
June 2014. 1023954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment that there is only one vendor, we believe 
there will be an increase use of DCOT in the future and an increased 
market and therefore other vendors will begin offering these services. 
We believe that once other vendors learn that EPA is starting to 
require DCOT in various rules and other actions, that other vendors 
will become available, which will likely keep prices approximately the 
same, or possibly lower. We are not aware of any evidence

[[Page 45094]]

that the vendor has raised, or will raise, its prices due to the 
Ferroalloys Production final rule.

C. BLDS on Positive Pressure Baghouses

    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that furnace 
baghouses would be required to be equipped with BLDS. In response to 
the supplemental proposal, Felman commented that the existing positive 
pressure baghouses and the baghouse monitoring system at the Felman 
site constrain the kinds of monitoring and monitoring systems that 
Felman can use, and that BLDS had never been demonstrated on a 
positive-pressure baghouse. Felman requested that the EPA not require 
BLDS on their baghouses because they claimed this would effectively 
require Felman to replace its existing control system with a negative-
pressure baghouse simply to meet the baghouse monitoring requirement. 
In response to this comment, we explained that the EPA has knowledge of 
BLDS being used on positive pressure baghouse systems, including those 
baghouses with large area roof emissions points. A change to a negative 
pressure baghouse would not be necessary. Manufacturers of BLDSs 
provide information on how best to deploy their instruments on the 
outlet of a positive pressure baghouse.
    In their petition, Felman asserted that the EPA did not provide any 
information regarding the use of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses. 
The commenter stated that in the Response to Comment document,\3\ the 
EPA claimed that they had knowledge of BLDS being used on positive 
pressure baghouses and that the facility should check with 
manufacturers of BLDS for how best to comply. However, the petitioner 
stated that this knowledge is not included in the record, and the most 
current published EPA technical guidance on this topic stated that BLDS 
is not appropriate for positive pressure baghouses. In addition, the 
petitioner claimed the EPA had not evaluated the costs associated with 
this application and estimated the cost to be comparable with BLDS for 
negative pressure baghouses. The petitioner also noted that the EPA's 
supplemental proposal did not require continuous baghouse monitoring 
for baghouses used to control fugitive emissions. However, the 
petitioner stated that the baghouses used to control fugitive emissions 
at their facility also control emissions from the furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the petition from Felman, and after gathering, 
reviewing, and evaluating additional information, the EPA is not 
proposing any changes to the requirement in the rule that baghouses be 
equipped with BLDS. The EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to 
require BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all furnace baghouses. 
However, we are seeking comments on this BLDS requirement and on the 
additional information we are adding to the record, as described in the 
following paragraph.
    We are providing additional supporting information on the use of 
BLDSs on positive pressure baghouses to the record. This includes 
technical articles 4 5 on the installation and operation of 
BLDS on positive pressure baghouses, and correspondence with 
manufacturers and installers with experience installing BLDS on 
positive pressure baghouses (see the Positive Pressure Baghouse Bag 
Leak Detection Information Memorandum which is available in the docket 
for this action). In addition, we have corresponded with facilities 
that have installed and operated BLDS on their positive pressure 
baghouses (see the Positive Pressure Baghouse Bag Leak Detection 
Information Memorandum which is available in the docket for this 
action). Based on this information, we have found no technical or 
economic basis for removing the BLDS requirement from the final rule. 
The monitoring requirement for furnace baghouses is intended to ensure 
continuous compliance with the PM standards in the final rule, which 
are surrogate standards for metal HAP emitted from the furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Iron and Steel Technology, Practical Application of Broken 
Bag Detector Technology for Compliance and Maintenance: Under the 
Steelmaking Electric Arc Furnace New Source Performance Standards 
and the Iron and Foundry NESHAP, April 2005.
    \5\ Babcock & Wilcox, Fabric Filter Leak Detector Setup and Use, 
August 2014. Technical Paper BR-1920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned previously, we are seeking comments on the BLDS 
requirement along with data and other information to support such 
comments. If a commenter disagrees with our assessment regarding 
feasibility of BLDS on specific types of baghouses, we encourage such 
commenters to provide a detailed technical explanation and information 
to support such comments. Furthermore, in this case, we would also 
request the commenter to provide detailed suggestions as to what 
alternative monitoring actions could be implemented (instead of BLDS) 
to ensure continuous compliance with the PM standards.

IV. Impacts of This Action

A. Economic Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant economic impacts as a 
result of this rule reconsideration. The rule provisions that are being 
reconsidered in this action were already included in the Economic 
Impact Analysis for the final rule. Changes to the final rule as a 
result of this reconsideration, if any, would likely result in lower 
economic costs and impacts rather than higher costs and impacts.

B. Environmental Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant environmental impacts as a 
result of the reconsideration of the three rule provisions identified 
in this action, especially since the EPA is not proposing any changes 
to these provisions. The issues being reconsidered are monitoring and 
compliance testing issues and, therefore, should not have any effect on 
the estimated emissions or emission reductions from what we estimated 
in the final rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0676. This proposal document provides 
reconsideration of three issues raised by petitioners on the final 
rule, but does not make revisions to the requirements in the final 
rule. Therefore, this action does not change the information collection 
requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any 
additional burden on industry.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not

[[Page 45095]]

impose any requirements on small entities. The agency has determined 
that neither of the companies affected by this proposed reconsideration 
document is considered to be a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys production facilities 
that are owned or operated by 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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. The health risk assessments completed for the final rule are 
presented in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source 
Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule document, which is available 
in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0281), and are 
discussed in section V.G of the preamble for the final rule (80 FR 
37366).

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. In the final rule for 
this source category, the EPA decided to use ASTM D7520-13, Standard 
Test Method for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor 
Ambient Atmosphere, for measuring opacity from the shop buildings. This 
standard is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 and is available 
from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
See http://www.astm.org/. For this proposed reconsideration action, the 
EPA has agreed to reconsider the use of ASTM D7520-13 as the only 
method to be used to measure opacity from the shop buildings.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 
because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human 
health or the environment. This action only includes reconsideration of 
certain issues of the final rule that will not affect the emission 
standards that were finalized on June 30, 2015.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-16450 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P