For SiMn, there were no changes to the best performing source and
the PAH limit of 72 [mu]g/dscm proposed in the supplemental proposal is
the same limit selected for the final rule for new furnaces producing
SiMn.
    The 99-percent UPL for PAHs for FeMn production is about 8 times
higher than the proposed PAH limit for FeMn in the supplemental
proposal, whereas the 99-percent UPL for PAHs for SiMn production is
comparable to the proposed limit in the supplemental proposal. The new
data show there is substantial variability in PAH emissions from the
furnaces, especially during FeMn production.
    As mentioned in section III.E of this preamble, due to the large
variation in PAH emissions from furnace stacks during FeMn production,
we are requiring quarterly compliance tests for PAHs (i.e., four PAH
compliance tests per year) for furnaces while producing FeMn, with an
opportunity for facilities to apply for decreased frequency of such
compliance testing from their permit authority after the first year and
after four or more successful PAH compliance tests have been completed
and submitted to the permit authority.
    We expect that any application submitted by an affected source to
request reduced frequent compliance testing for PAHs should include
information regarding the four or more compliant test results and what
factors or conditions are contributing to the quantity and variation of
PAH emissions. For example, the application could include, among other
things, 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 that may
be affecting the PAH emissions.
    The re-evaluation of the Hg test data, which includes the new test
data, produced a 99-percent UPL of 130 [mu]g/dscm for existing furnaces
producing FeMn and 12 [mu]g/dscm for existing furnaces producing SiMn.
For new sources, the new test data did not affect the 99-percent UPL of
4 [mu]g/dscm for new furnaces producing SiMn.
    With regard to the new source limit in the supplemental proposal
for Hg for furnaces producing FeMn, the proposed new source limit was
based on BTF controls using activated carbon injection (ACI), and
assuming 90-percent reduction. We continue to conclude that it is
appropriate to require BTF controls for new FeMn sources consistent
with the supplemental proposal (assuming 90-percent reduction).
Therefore, we calculate that the new source limit for the final rule
for Hg for furnaces producing FeMn will be 13 [mu] g/dscm (i.e., 130
[mu] g/dscm minus 90-percent control). These UPL values are generally
consistent with, but a bit lower than, the proposed limits in the
supplemental proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3)
proposed revisions, and what are our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the CAA section 112(d)(2)
& (3) proposed revisions for the Ferroalloys Production source
category. The following is a summary of these comments and our
responses. Other comments received and our responses can be found in
the document titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Ferroalloys Production Summary of Public Comments
and the EPA's Responses on Proposed Rule (76 FR 72508, November 23,
2011) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 2014), which
is available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895).
    Comment: Commenters claimed the EPA was establishing MACT floors
for the newly regulated HAP based on limited data. The commenters noted
that for many of these pollutants, there is limited understanding of
the mechanism of their generation in the process and the variability in
the level of their occurrence. As a result, it is essential that EPA
use all reasonably available data in establishing these standards.
    The commenters noted the EPA excluded PAH data for both SiMn and
FeMn production, that showed higher levels of emissions. They believe
the exclusion of these data led to calculation of a proposed MACT floor
for PAH that is below the level that can be demonstrably achieved by
the best performing sources.
    The commenters argued that the EPA should reconsider its decision
not to include these data in calculation of the MACT floor. One
commenter noted that additional testing to better characterize
variability, particularly for PAH, was being performed prior to the
comment period for the supplemental proposal and encouraged the EPA to
consider these additional data in calculating the MACT floor levels for
the final standard.
    Response: We have received multiple test reports from the industry
during the development of the supplemental proposal and during the
comment period for the supplemental proposal. Each test report received
was reviewed to determine if the test met the quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) requirements for this RTR. Only test data that met
these requirements were used to estimate emissions used for determining
residual risk from the emissions sources and for determining the MACT
floor limits. Most data we received passed the QA/QC process and were
judged to be valid data and were used in our risk analyses and MACT
floor calculations, including data received shortly before publication
of the supplemental proposal and data received during the comment
period. The final rule MACT floor limits include the updated data.
However, a few tests we received previously did not meet the QA/QC
requirements and, therefore, were not used in these analyses. For
further explanation of the data evaluation, see the Revised Development
of the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Emissions Dataset for the
Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the 2015 Final Rule
document, which is available in the docket.
    Even though some of the test data received did not meet the QA/QC
requirements for this RTR, we believe we still have a robust set of
test data for most of the HAP and the majority of the MACT floor
analyses are based on multiple tests from each of the facilities.
    Comment: One commenter believes the EPA has not demonstrated that
ACI on new furnaces will provide any benefits. The commenter notes that
the EPA estimated that Eramet emits only an estimated 274 pounds of Hg
per year, and Hg emissions do not contribute to multipathway exposures
exceeding an HQ of 1. Thus, reducing Hg emissions would not address any
existing risks.
    If no added cost was involved, lowering Hg emissions might be a
worthwhile objective. But, the fact is that cost is a relevant concern
under CAA section 112(d)(2) and, as discussed below, achieving the
proposed new source standards would be prohibitively expensive.
    The commenter states that the EPA justifies its conclusion that ACI
is affordable for new sources based on the assumption that any new
source will be built with a baghouse. As a threshold matter, the EPA's
assertion that ACI is cost effective when applied to baghouse-
controlled sources is contradicted by its own supporting memorandum.
According to Table 6-3 of the Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R,
Inc. to Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MICG on Mercury Control Options
and Impacts for the Ferroalloys Production Industry (Aug. 29, 2014),

adding ACI is 5 times more expensive to add to a baghouse than to a
scrubber, and operational costs are 3 times higher. The table, thus,
indicates that the cost per pound of Hg removed would be higher, not
lower, for EMI's baghouse-controlled source, and EPA's estimated
marginal cost is $22,195 per pound, almost twice the cost presented by
the EPA in the preamble to the 2014 proposal. Since this is based on an
unrealistic removal rate, the unit cost would actually be at least
$44,000 per pound of Hg removed.
    Second, the commenter states that the sole economic justification
for ACI is the EPA's substantially understated unit cost of $17,600 for
each pound of Hg removed. The EPA's cost-per-pound metric is completely
untethered to any cost-benefit analysis. To say how much it will cost
to remove a pound of Hg provides no practical basis for assessing the
relative value of removing that pound of Hg or the relative ability of
a ferroalloys producer to absorb that cost. The docket contains no
demonstration, much less substantial evidence, that the lower cost
would nevertheless be affordable by EMI.
    Finally, the commenter notes that the facility is captive to the
pricing structure imposed by low-cost foreign ferroalloy producers who
will not be subject to the requirements of this rule. Accordingly,
foreign producers prevent the facility from passing on costs such as
this to customers via higher prices. Before that facility can construct
a new furnace, it would have to determine that the new furnace would
produce a positive return large enough to cover the cost of
constructing and operating that additional furnace, while charging the
same price charged by producers not incurring the added costs of ACI.
The EPA provides no explanation for why it believes this would be
possible and our analysis strongly suggests that it would not be
possible.
    The commenter states that the net result is that the proposed new
source standard effectively prevents EMI from increasing FeMn
production in the future via a new furnace and ensures that when the
existing furnaces require replacement, they will not be replaced with
furnaces capable of producing FeMn. The EPA's proposed new source
standard is inconsistent with EPA's recognition in the 2014 proposal
that EMI is the sole U.S. source of FeMn for domestic steel production,
and its judgment that ACI should not be immediately required, in part,
because such a requirement would likely force EMI out of business. The
proposed Hg ``beyond-the-MACT-floor standard'' produces the same result
that the EPA agrees should be avoided, only at a later date.
    Response: Activated carbon injection in conjunction with fabric
filter technology has been successfully used to reduce emissions of Hg
from a number of different industries. In addition, the use of
brominated carbon has been used to oxidize the Hg allowing even greater
control effectiveness for Hg.
    The determination of the Hg limits for new or major reconstructed
furnaces is based on the assurance that such sources would be
constructed to include a baghouse as the primary PM control device (in
order to comply with the proposed lower new source limits for PM) and
then they could add ACI after the baghouse for Hg control along with a
polishing baghouse and would achieve at least 90-percent reduction of
Hg.
    In the supplemental proposal, the estimated costs for beyond the
floor controls for mercury for new and reconstructed sources were based
on the costs of installing and operating brominated ACI and a polishing
baghouse. Based on this, in the supplemental proposal, we estimated
that the cost effectiveness of BTF controls for a new and major
reconstructed FeMn production source would be about $12,000/lb. This
cost effectiveness estimate is well within the range of cost
effectiveness levels we have decided were reasonable in other rules.
Furthermore, no other significant economic factors were identified that
would indicate that these limits would be inappropriate or infeasible
for new sources. Therefore, in the supplemental proposal, we concluded
that BTF controls would be cost-effective and feasible for any new or
major reconstructed furnace that produces FeMn.
    We received new Hg test data prior to and during the comment period
for the supplemental proposal. Using these new test data along with the
previous data we re-evaluated the cost of installing ACI to reduce Hg.
Similar to the supplemental proposal, we estimated costs for BTF
controls for Hg for new and reconstructed sources based on the costs of
installing and operating brominated ACI and a polishing baghouse. Based
on this re-evaluation, we estimate that the cost effectiveness of
installing ACI for a new and major reconstructed FeMn production source
would be about $13,600/lb for a furnace producing FeMn 50 percent of
the year, and $7,100/lb for a furnace producing FeMn 100 percent of the
year.
    These cost effectiveness estimates are similar to the estimate we
presented in the supplemental proposal for the beyond the floor option
for new FeMn furnaces and continue to be within the range of cost
effectivenesses we have determined are reasonable for mercury control
in other rulemakings. Furthermore, no other significant economic
factors were identified that would indicate these limits would be
inappropriate or infeasible for new or major reconstructed furnaces
that produce FeMn. Therefore, we believe the BTF control option for Hg
emissions is economically and technically feasible for new and major
reconstructed FeMn furnaces and that these cost effectivenesses are
acceptable for any new or major reconstructed furnace that produces
FeMn. Additional discussion of the EPA's BTF analyses for mercury are
available in the Final Rule Mercury Control Options and Impacts for the
Ferroalloys Production Industry document and in the Mercury Control
Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys Production Industry document
(dated August 2014) that EPA published in support of the 2014
supplemental proposal. These documents are available in the docket for
this action.
    An assessment of the cost effectiveness of emission reductions,
along with other economic factors, is an appropriate method for
assessing cost impacts in standard setting when CAA section 112 allows
cost to be a factor in EPA's decision-making. Nothing in CAA section
112 compels EPA to use cost-benefit analysis in standard-setting
decisions. Moreover, to the extent the commenter bases its position
that the new source BTF standard for mercury lacks benefits because it
does not address ``any existing risk,'' the court of appeals has held
that risk is not a consideration when setting MACT standards, as in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 981 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The emission
standards in this rule discharge EPA's CAA section 112(d)(2) duties
with respect to Hg emissions from new and existing electric arc
furnaces in this source category.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) revisions?
    We evaluated and rejected BTF options for the CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3) revisions in the supplemental proposal and proposed MACT floor
emissions limits for formaldehyde, HCl, Hg, and PAH for existing
sources. We also evaluated and rejected BTF options for new sources for
formaldehyde, HCl, and PAHs. For Hg, we also evaluated BTF options for
new furnaces. We rejected BTF for new SiMn furnaces. However, we
proposed BTF limits for Hg for FeMn furnaces. See the Revised

MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category
document and the Final Rule Mercury Control Options and Impacts for the
Ferroalloys Production Industry document, which are available in the
docket.
    We are promulgating MACT floor-based limits for the four HAP
described above for existing sources under CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) as described above, which is the same approach as in the
supplemental proposal. Regarding new sources, we are promulgating MACT
floor limits for new sources for formaldehyde, HCl, and PAHs, and for
Hg for new SiMn furnaces. However, we are promulgating a BTF limit for
Hg for FeMn furnaces.
    The limits for HCl and formaldehyde are exactly the same as
proposed. The Hg limits for FeMn and SiMn production and PAH limits for
SiMn production changed slightly due to the inclusion of additional
data. The only significant change was for the PAH limit for FeMn
production, which is about 8 times higher than what we proposed. In our
supplemental proposal, we provided notice of receipt of the highest
test data (i.e., the data received in August 2014) which when combined
with the other data resulted in a higher PAH limit. While these data
had not been completely QA/QCed before the supplemental proposal, both
the method for calculating a limit and most of the data on which the
final limit was calculated were available and addressed in the
supplemental proposal. Furthermore, commenters agreed that the final
limit should be based on all available valid data. As we stated
previously, any changes to the Hg and PAH emissions limits were a
result of using all of the available valid data which resulted in a
change to the MACT floor calculations. Additional data received during
the comment period confirmed a higher PAH limit was justified.

D. What changes did we make to the Ferroalloys Production opacity
monitoring requirement?

1. What changes did we propose for the ferroalloys production opacity
monitoring requirement?
    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA solicited comment
regarding the use of new technologies to provide continuous or near
continuous long term approaches to monitoring emissions from industrial
sources such as the ferroalloys production facilities within this
source category. Specifically, we were seeking comment on the
feasibility and practice associated with the use of automated opacity
monitoring with ASTM D7520-13, using DCOT at fixed points to interpret
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.
2. How did the opacity monitoring requirements change for the
Ferroalloys Production source category?
    Based on the information we received during the comment period for
the supplemental proposal and after further evaluation of the
technology, we believe that the use of DCOT can provide opacity
readings comparable to Method 9 and reduce the burden of requiring a
person to conduct opacity readings over the furnace cycle. Furthermore,
the DCOT provides objective and well-substantiated readings of opacity.
The DCOT camera provides an image that the facility could access
immediately, with QA/QC done within 45 minutes to validate the image
and initial readings. In comparison, it would take a field observer
roughly 30 minutes to return from the field and average their manually
assembled data such that they can report the average that they recorded
over the previous 90 minutes of observations. We view the initial
visible recording as sufficient evidence to provide the facility enough
reason to initiate, investigate, and correct concerns that may create
elevated visual emissions observations, and the 45-minute turnaround
time on actual opacity values to be quick enough to provide a facility
the confirmation they would need to be assured that they have taken
appropriate action.
3. What key comments did we receive on the opacity monitoring
requirement, and what are our responses?
    Comment: In their supplemental proposal comments, one commenter
objects to the significantly increased frequency of opacity
observations from once every 5 years to weekly. They note that the
Agency states that the frequency is ``appropriate'' to demonstrate
compliance with the process fugitive standard with the enhanced
frequency presumably substituting for the continuous negative pressure
monitoring obligations from the 2011 proposal.
    The commenter believes that this explanation overlooks the
stringent continuous monitoring that the proposed rule already requires
to ensure that the process fugitives control system meets the 95-
percent capture requirement. First, the facility must develop a plan to
demonstrate 95-percent capture, and that plan must be approved by the
permitting authority. Next, the facility must perform an initial
compliance demonstration. The facility must then identify specific
parameters, either through the engineering assessment or the initial
compliance demonstration, that are indicative of compliance with the
opacity standard. Finally, on an ongoing basis, the facility must
routinely monitor those parameters.
    The commenter notes that an initial compliance demonstration and
ongoing monitoring is a standard regulatory approach required in any
number of MACT standards. However, none of these other standards
require weekly testing to confirm that the parameters and limits are
still being met and many other standards require re-testing only every
5 years, or at most annually. They believe that nothing in the current
proposal demonstrates why it is necessary or appropriate to deviate
from this standard approach here.
    Two commenters believe that the proposed weekly opacity testing
will impose significant ongoing costs on the facilities for no
additional environmental benefit. They believe that the ongoing
parametric monitoring is sufficient to ensure compliance on an ongoing
basis.
    These commenters believe that the weekly opacity reading
requirement is overly burdensome, especially for Eramet because they
have three shop buildings. They estimate 3-5 hours per building opacity
reading for a total of 9-15 hours a week for reading opacity.
    Response: We re-evaluated the opacity monitoring requirements in
the supplemental proposal and determined that the DCOT and ASTM D7520-
13 provided a development that ensures compliance with the fugitive
emissions standards, as well as reduces the labor burden on the
facilities. After initial setup, the DCOT can measure the opacity
during the furnace process cycle without any labor needed. In addition,
facilities would not have the cost of annual certification as is the
case with Method 9. We estimate that the overall costs of DCOT and ASTM
D7520-13 will be approximately the same as what the overall costs would
be if facilities used method 9. In addition, due to the baseline
unacceptable risk finding being based largely on process fugitive
manganese emissions, we believe the frequent opacity readings using the
objective and substantiated results of DCOT are warranted to ensure
fugitive emissions are effectively captured and controlled. However,
after considering comments, we decided to allow facilities an
opportunity to reduce the

frequency of opacity readings to once per month per furnace building
(instead of weekly) if the facility achieves 26 consecutive compliant
weekly readings for that furnace building. This reduction in frequency
will reduce the cost burden for the facilities. However, if any of the
subsequent monthly readings exceed the opacity limit for that furnace
building, the facility must return to weekly readings until they
achieve another 26 compliant weekly readings, at which time the
facility can return to monthly readings.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's determination that
opacity observations should be measured over a furnace process cycle.
However, because all furnaces at the Felman facility are located in the
same building, the commenter suggests treating the building as a single
opacity source, and that opacity observations be conducted over a time
period that captures a full furnace process cycle from each furnace
within that building.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have revised the opacity
requirements to include opacity determinations from buildings with
multiple furnaces. The requirement will treat the building with
multiple furnaces as a single opacity source and the opacity readings
will be conducted over a time period that will include tapping from
each of the furnaces in operation.
    Comment: In comments on the supplemental proposal, two commenters
state that the EPA should require the use of the best available testing
method, digital opacity monitoring. The commenters describe the
benefits of the DCOT compared to Method 9 and provide supporting
documentation. In particular, one commenter supports the DCOT because
it is EPA certified as a valid test method for opacity and approved for
its use, the use of a camera creates a good electronic record of the
observations, conditions, location, etc., and a number of regulated
entities are using this method to assess opacity. The commenter adds
that using cameras can save resources, citing a Department of Defense
project to reduce Method 9 certification costs. The commenter adds that
the EPA should also require opacity determinations to be documented on
an electronic form and provided on the Internet in real time for public
review.
    One commenter adds that the EPA should not allow Method 9 to be
used, unless there is a power outage requiring the facility to use
Method 9 to assure opacity standard compliance. They also add that
instead of Method 9, the EPA should require a source to use either
continuous opacity monitor or DCOT.
    Response: We evaluated the use of DCOT and the ASTM D7520-13 method
and determined that this technology provides the same compliance
assurance as Method 9 measurements with approximately the same overall
burden on the facilities and the DCOT provides reliable, unbiased
opacity readings. Therefore, we are requiring opacity determinations to
be made using DCOT and ASTM D7520-13. With regard to the comment
suggesting that the DCOT results be documented in an electronic format
and provided on the internet in real time, the DCOT results will be
recorded in an electronic format. Furthermore, use of the DCOT will
improve transparency of opacity monitoring results. However, we do not
have a system established to provide these results on the internet in
real time. Furthermore, the ERT is not yet configured to be able to
accept the DCOT compliance images. Nevertheless, the rule requires the
affected sources to maintain electronic records of the DCOT results and
submit periodic compliance monitoring reports to the Administrator or
permit authority. We believe that the public will be able to obtain
copies of the compliance results within a reasonable amount of time by
contacting the EPA and/or the permit authority through the appropriate
channels.
    Comment: One commenter requests a clarification to the proposed
regulatory language: That EPA add the phrase ``over a furnace process
cycle'' at the end of 40 CFR 63.1623(b)(3). As written in the
supplemental proposal, the language requires that opacity emissions not
exceed 8 percent, but no averaging time is specified. The proposed
subsections, Sec.  63.1623(b)(3)(i) though (iii) stated that the
compliance demonstration for this obligation must be determined over
the course of an entire furnace process cycle, but they do not clearly
state that the limit itself is 8 percent over the entire furnace
process cycle, and not, for example, an instantaneous limit, or 8
percent over a 6-minute period. To avoid misunderstanding, this
averaging period should be stated clearly as part of the standard
itself.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have included language
that clarifies the opacity requirement in the final rule.
4. What is the rationale for our final decision for the opacity
monitoring requirement?
    We are finalizing requirements to measure opacity from the furnace
buildings using ASTM D7520-13 and digital camera technology because we
conclude this is the best method to ensure reliable and unbiased
readings for opacity. We are also finalizing the requirement that
facilities need to meet an average opacity standard of no more than 8-
percent opacity for each furnace cycle. Furthermore, we are finalizing
the requirement that at no time during operation may any two
consecutive 6-minute block opacity readings (12-minute period) be
greater than 20-percent opacity.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    Eramet Marietta Incorporated, in Marietta, Ohio and Felman
Production LLC, in Letart West Virginia, are the 2 manganese
ferroalloys production facilities currently operating in the United
States that will be affected by these amendments. We do not know of any
new facilities that are expected to be constructed in the foreseeable
future. However, there is one other facility that has a permit to
produce FeMn or SiMn in an electric arc furnace, but it is not doing so
at present. It is possible, however, that this facility could resume
production or another non-manganese ferroalloy producer could decide to
commence production of FeMn or SiMn. Given this uncertainty, our impact
analysis is focused on the two existing sources that are currently
operating.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    As noted in the 2011 proposal, emissions of metal HAP from
ferroalloys production sources have declined in recent years, primarily
as the result of state actions and also due to the industry's own
initiative. The final amendments in this rule would cut HAP emissions
(primarily particulate metal HAP such as manganese, arsenic, and
nickel) by about 60 percent from their current levels. Under the final
emissions standards for process fugitives emissions from the furnace
building, we estimate that the HAP emissions reductions would be 77
tpy, including significant reductions of manganese.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the revised final amendments, each ferroalloys production
facility is expected to incur costs for the design, installation and
operation of an enhanced local capture system. Each facility also is
expected to incur costs associated with the installation of additional
control devices to manage the air flows generated by the enhanced

capture systems. There would also be capital costs associated with
installing new or improved continuous monitoring systems, including
installation of BLDS on the furnace baghouses that are not currently
equipped with these systems and installation and operation of DCOT
systems to monitor opacity.
    The revised capital costs for each facility were estimated based on
the projected number and types of upgrades required. The specific
enhancements for each facility were selected for cost estimation based
on estimates directly provided by the facilities based on their
engineering analyses and discussions with the EPA. The Cost Impacts of
Control Options to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions for the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP Supplemental Proposal document includes a complete
description of the revised cost estimate methods used for this analysis
and is available in the docket.
    Cost elements vary by plant and furnace and include the following
elements:
     Curtains or doors surrounding furnace tops to contain
fugitive emissions;
     Improvements to hoods collecting tapping emissions;
     Upgraded fans to improve the airflow of fabric filters
controlling fugitive emissions;
     Addition of ``secondary capture'' or additional hoods to
capture emissions from tapping platforms or crucibles;
     Addition of fugitives capture for casting operations;
     Improvement of existing control devices or addition of
fabric filters; and
     Addition of rooftop ventilation, in which fugitive
emissions escaping local control are collected in the roof canopy over
process areas through addition of partitions and hoods, then directed
through roof vents and ducts to control devices.
    For purposes of the analysis for the final rule, we assumed that
enhanced capture systems and roofline ventilation will be installed for
all operational furnaces at both facilities and for MOR operations at
Eramet Marietta. The specific elements of the capture and control
systems selected for each facility are based on information supplied by
the facilities incorporating their best estimates of the improvements
to fugitive emission capture and control they would implement to
achieve the standards included in the final rule. We estimate the total
capital costs of installing the required ductwork, fans, control
devices, and monitoring to comply with the enhanced capture system
requirements to be $40.3 million and the total annualized cost to be
$7.7 million (2012 dollars) for the two plants. We estimate that
enhanced capture and control systems required by this rule will reduce
metal HAP emissions by 75 tons, resulting in a cost per ton of metal
HAP removed to be $106,000 per ton ($53 per pound). The total HAP
reduction for the enhanced capture and control systems is estimated to
be 77 tpy at a cost per ton of $103,000 per ton ($52 per pound). We
also estimate that these systems will achieve PM emission reductions of
229 tpy, resulting in cost per ton of PM removed of $34,600 per ton and
achieve PM2.5 emission reductions of 48 tpy, resulting in a
cost per ton of PM2.5 removal of $165,000 per ton.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As a result of the requirements in this final rule, we estimate
that the total capital cost for the Eramet facility will be about $25.4
million and the total annualized costs will be about $5.6 million (in
2012 dollars). For impacts to Felman Production LLC, this facility is
estimated to incur a total capital cost of $14.9 million and a total
annualized costs of just under $2.1 million (in 2012 dollars). In
total, these costs could lead to an increase in annualized cost of
about 1.9 percent of sales, which serves as an estimate for the
increase in product prices, and a decrease in output of as much as 10.1
percent. For more information regarding economic impacts, please refer
to the Economic Impact Analysis report and the summary of public
comments and EPA's responses document which are included in the public
docket for this final rule.

E. What are the benefits?

    The estimated reductions in HAP emissions (i.e., about 77 tpy) that
will be achieved by this action will provide significant benefits to
public health. For example, there will be a significant reduction in
emissions of HAP metals (especially manganese, arsenic, nickel,
chromium, cadmium, and lead). The rule will also achieve some
reductions of Hg and PAHs. In addition to the HAP reductions, we also
estimate that this final rule will reduce 48 tons in PM2.5
emissions as a co-benefit of the HAP reductions annually.
    This rulemaking is not an ``economically significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we
have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this
rulemaking or a benefits analysis. While we expect that these avoided
emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce health
effects associated with exposure to HAP associated with these
emissions, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing
these emissions for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are
no benefits associated with these emission reductions. In fact, our
demographic analysis indicates that thousands of people live within 50
kilometers of these two facilities and these people will experience
benefits because of the reduced exposure to air toxics due to this
rulemaking.
    When determining if the benefits of an action exceed its costs,
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct the Agency to consider
qualitative benefits that are difficult to quantify but essential to
consider. Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure
to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health
benefits, including avoided premature mortality and morbidity from
cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated
PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous
toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA,
2009).\4\ When adequate data and resources are available and an RIA is
required, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects
associated with exposure to PM2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2012).\5\ These
health effects include premature mortality for adults and infants,
cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions
and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis,
hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted
activity days, and respiratory symptoms. The scientific literature also
suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with
adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function
and other cardiovascular and respiratory effects (U.S. EPA, 2009), but
the EPA has not quantified certain outcomes of these impacts in its
benefits analyses. PM2.5 also increases light extinction,
which is

an important aspect of reduced visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.
Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available
on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rulemaking is also anticipated to reduce emissions of other
HAP, including metal HAP (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (both total and
hexavalent), lead compounds, manganese, and nickel) and PAHs. Some of
these HAP are carcinogenic (e.g., arsenic, PAHs) and some are toxic and
have effects other than cancer (e.g., kidney disease from cadmium,
respiratory, and immunological effects from nickel). While we cannot
quantitatively estimate the benefits achieved by reducing emissions of
these HAP, qualitative benefits are expected as a result of reducing
exposures to these HAP. More information about the health effects of
these HAP can be found on the IRIS,\6\ ATSDR,\7\ and California EPA \8\
Web pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Integrated Risk Information System. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
    \7\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2006.
Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html.
    \8\ CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2005.
Chronic Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of December
2008. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As explained in section IV.A of this preamble, we assessed the
impacts to various demographic groups. The methodology and the results
of the analyses are described in the Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Ferroalloys Facilities, which is available in the docket.
    Based on that assessment, we conclude that this final rule will
reduce the number of people exposed to elevated risks, from
approximately 41,000, to about 26,000 people exposed to a potential
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and from 1,300 to
zero people exposed to a potential chronic noncancer hazard level of 1.
Based on this analysis, the EPA has determined that these final rule
requirements 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. See Section VI.J of this preamble for more
information.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because the Agency does not believe the environmental
health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The report, Analysis of Socio-
Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Ferroalloys Facilities,
which is available in the docket, shows that, prior to the
implementation of the provisions included in this final rule, on a
nationwide basis, there are approximately 41,000 people exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and approximately 1,300 people
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 due to emissions
from the source category. The percentages for all demographic groups
(with the exception of those ages 65 and older, which is only slightly
higher than the national average), including children 18 years and
younger, are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide
percentages. Further, implementation of the provisions included in this
action is expected to significantly reduce the number of at-risk people
due to HAP emissions from these sources (from approximately 41,000 to
about 26,000 for cancer risks and from 1,300 to zero for chronic
noncancer hazards), providing significant benefit to all demographic
groups.
    This rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for everyone,
including children. This action establishes emissions limits at the
levels based on MACT, as required by the CAA. Based on our analysis, we
believe that this rule does not present a disproportionate risk to
children because it increases the level of environmental protection for
all affected populations.

VI. 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 Orders 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)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2488.01. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Respondents/affected entities: New and existing ferroalloys
production facilities that produce FeMn and SiMn and are either major
sources of HAP emissions or are co-located at major sources of HAP.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Estimated number of respondents: 2.
    Frequency of response: Semiannual.
    Total estimated burden: 707 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0.85 million (per year), includes $0.78
million annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

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. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are
businesses that can be classified as small firms using the Small
Business Administration size standards for their respective industries.
The agency has determined that neither of the companies affected by
this rule is considered to be a small entity. Details of this analysis
are presented in the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and
Technology Review: Ferroalloys Production Source

Category, which is available in the docket for this action.

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 on
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. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Production Source
Category in Support of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule
document, which is available in the docket for this action, and are
discussed in section V.G of this preamble.

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 and 1 CFR Part 51

    This final rule involves technical standards. EPA decided to use
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its manual
methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the
exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990.
    The EPA has also 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/.
    In addition, the EPA has decided to use California Air Resources
Board Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
(PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources for measuring PAH emissions
from the furnace control device. This method is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 0010 and is available from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), Engineering and Certification Branch, 1001 I
Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/M_429.pdf.
    The EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D,
10, 26A, 29, 30B, 316 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS
were identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 316.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in this final rule.

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

    The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by
emissions from this source category are unacceptable. There are up to
41,000 people living in close proximity to the two facilities that are
currently subject to health risks which may not be considered
negligible (i.e., cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million or chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1) due to emissions from this source
category. The demographic makeup of this population is similar to the
national distribution for all demographic groups, with the exception of
those ages 65 and older, which is slightly higher than the national
average. This final rule will reduce the number of people in this
group, from approximately 41,000, to about 26,000 people exposed to a
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and from 1,300 to
zero people for a chronic noncancer hazard index of 1. The EPA believes
the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will
not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection
for all affected populations. The results of this evaluation are
contained in section IV.A of this preamble. A copy of this methodology
and the results of the demographic analysis are included in a technical
report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors
for Populations Living Near Ferroalloys Facilities, which is available
in the docket for this action.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: May 28, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (f)(1);

0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (g)(87) through (94) as paragraphs
(g)(88) through (95), respectively;
0
c. By adding new paragraph (g)(87);
0
d. By revising paragraph (j) introductory text;
0
e. By redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) as paragraphs (j)(2)
through (4), respectively; and
0
f. By adding new paragraph (j)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a),
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d),
table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e),
63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a),
63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart
JJJJJ, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (87) ASTM D7520-13, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,'' Approved
December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b).
* * * * *
    (j) California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1001 I Street, P.O. Box
2815, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://www.arb.ca.gov/.
    (1) Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
(PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources, Adopted September 12, 1989,
Amended July 28, 1997, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b).
* * * * *

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

0
3. Sections 63.1620 through 63.1629 are added to read as follows:

Sec.
63.1620 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1621 What are my compliance dates?
63.1622 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.1623 What are the emissions standards for new, reconstructed and
existing facilities?
63.1624 What are the operational and work practice standards for
new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?
63.1625 What are the performance test and compliance requirements
for new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?
63.1626 What monitoring requirements must I meet?
63.1627 What notification requirements must I meet?
63.1628 What recordkeeping and reporting requirements must I meet?
63.1629 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *

Sec.  63.1620  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new or
existing ferromanganese and/or silicomanganese production facility that
is a major source or is co-located at a major source of hazardous air
pollutant emissions.
    (b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate any of
the following equipment as part of a ferromanganese and/or
silicomanganese production facility:
    (1) Electric arc furnace;
    (2) Casting operations;
    (3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process;
    (4) Crushing and screening operations;
    (5) Outdoor fugitive dust sources.
    (c) A new affected source is any of the equipment listed in
paragraph (b) of this section for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after June 30, 2015.
    (d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply to owners and operators of ferromanganese and
silicomanganese production facilities subject to this subpart.
    (e) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are
also subject to title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR part 70 or
71, as applicable.
    (f) Emission standards in this subpart apply at all times.

Sec.  63.1621  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) Existing affected sources must be in compliance with the
provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1620 through 63.1629 no later
than June 30, 2017.
    (b) Affected sources in existence prior to June 30, 2015 must be in
compliance with the provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through
63.1661 by November 21, 2001 and until June 30, 2017. As of June 30,
2017, the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 cease to
apply to affected sources in existence prior to June 30, 2015. The
provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 remain enforceable at
a source for its activities prior to June 30, 2017.
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after November 23, 2011, you must comply
with the requirements of this subpart by June 30, 2015, or upon startup
of operations, whichever is later.

Sec.  63.1622  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (Act), in
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the
exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering,
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture
the gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then
convey the captured gas stream to a control device or to the
atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the
following components as applicable to a given capture system design:
Duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, fans and roofline ventilation systems.
    Casting means the period of time from when molten ferroalloy is
removed from the tapping station until the pouring into casting molds
or beds is completed. This includes the following operations: Pouring
alloy from one ladle to another, slag separation, slag removal and
ladle transfer by crane, truck, or other conveyance.
    Crushing and screening equipment means the crushers, grinders,
mills, screens and conveying systems used to crush, size and prepare
for packing manganese-containing materials, including raw materials,
intermediate products and final products.
    Electric arc furnace means any furnace where electrical energy is
converted to heat energy by transmission of current between electrodes
partially submerged in the furnace charge. The furnace may be of an
open, semi-sealed, or sealed design.
    Furnace process cycle means the period in which the furnace is
tapped to the time in which the furnace is tapped again and includes
periods of charging, smelting, tapping, casting and ladle raking. For
multiple furnaces operating within a single shop building, furnace
process cycle means a period sufficient

to capture a full cycle of charging, smelting, tapping, casting and
ladle raking for each furnace within the shop building.
    Ladle treatment means a post-tapping process including metal and
alloy additions where chemistry adjustments are made in the ladle after
furnace smelting to achieve a specified product.
    Local ventilation means hoods, ductwork, and fans designed to
capture process fugitive emissions close to the area where the
emissions are generated (e.g., tap hoods).
    Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process means the reduction of the
carbon content of ferromanganese through the use of oxygen.
    Outdoor fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which
hazardous air pollutant-bearing particles are discharged to the
atmosphere due to wind or mechanical inducement such as vehicle
traffic. Fugitive dust sources include plant roadways, yard areas and
outdoor material storage and transfer operation areas.
    Plant roadway means any area at a ferromanganese and
silicomanganese production facility that is subject to plant mobile
equipment, such as forklifts, front end loaders, or trucks, carrying
manganese-bearing materials. Excluded from this definition are employee
and visitor parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by
plant mobile equipment.
    Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air
pollutant emissions that is associated with a ferromanganese or
silicomanganese production facility and is not a fugitive dust source
or a stack emissions source. Process fugitive sources include emissions
that escape capture from the electric arc furnace, tapping operations,
casting operations, ladle treatment, MOR or crushing and screening
equipment.
    Roofline ventilation system means an exhaust system designed to
evacuate process fugitive emissions that collect in the roofline area
to a control device.
    Shop building means the building which houses one or more electric
arc furnaces or other processes that generate process fugitive
emissions.
    Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source for
any purpose.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source for
any purpose.
    Tapping emissions means the gases and emissions associated with
removal of product from the electric arc furnace under normal operating
conditions, such as removal of metal under normal pressure and movement
by gravity down the spout into the ladle and filling the ladle.
    Tapping period means the time from when a tap hole is opened until
the time a tap hole is closed.

Sec.  63.1623  What are the emissions standards for new, reconstructed
and existing facilities?

    (a) Electric arc furnaces. You must install, operate and maintain
an effective capture system that collects the emissions from each
electric arc furnace operation and conveys the collected emissions to a
control device for the removal of the pollutants specified in the
emissions standards specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section.
    (1) Particulate matter emissions. (i) You must not discharge
exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing
particulate matter in excess of 4.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter (mg/dscm) into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed
electric arc furnace.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing particulate matter in excess of 25 mg/dscm
into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace.
    (2) Mercury emissions. (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases
from each electric arc furnace operation containing mercury emissions
in excess of 13 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm)
into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace
when producing ferromanganese.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 130 [mu]g/
dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when
producing ferromanganese.
    (iii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 4 [mu]g/
dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc
furnace when producing silicomanganese.
    (iv) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 12 [mu]g/
dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when
producing silicomanganese.
    (3) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions. (i) You must not
discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation
containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of
12,000 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed
electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions
in excess of 12,000 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing
electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
    (iii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions
in excess of 72 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or
reconstructed electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
    (iv) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions
in excess of 130 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing
electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
    (4) Hydrochloric acid emissions. (i) You must not discharge exhaust
gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing hydrochloric
acid emissions in excess of 180 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any
new or reconstructed electric arc furnace.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc
furnace operation containing hydrochloric acid emissions in excess of
1,100 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc
furnace.
    (5) Formaldehyde emissions. You must not discharge exhaust gases
from each electric arc furnace operation containing formaldehyde
emissions in excess of 201 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new,
reconstructed or existing electric arc furnace.
    (b) Process fugitive emissions. (1) You must install, operate and
maintain a capture system that is designed to collect 95 percent or
more of the emissions from process fugitive emissions sources and
convey the collected emissions to a control device that is demonstrated
to meet the applicable emission limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) or
(c) of this section.
    (2) The determination of the overall capture must be demonstrated
as required by Sec.  63.1624(a).
    (3) Unless you meet the criteria of paragragh (b)(3)(iii) of this
section, you must not cause the emissions exiting from a shop building
to exceed an average of 8 percent opacity over a furnace or MOR process
cycle.
    (i) This 8 percent opacity requirement is determined by averaging
the

individual opacity readings observed during the furnace or MOR process
cycle.
    (ii) An individual opacity reading shall be determined as the
average of 24 consecutive images recorded at 15-second intervals with
the opacity values from each individual digital image rounded to the
nearest 5 percent.
    (iii) If the average opacity from the shop building is greater than
8 percent opacity during an observed furnace or MOR process cycle, the
opacity of two more additional furnace or MOR process cycles must be
observed within 7 days and the average of the individual opacity
readings during the three observation periods must be less than 8
percent opacity.
    (iv) At no time during operation may the average of any two
consecutive individual opacity readings be greater than 20 percent
opacity.
    (c) Local ventilation emissions. If you operate local ventilation
to capture tapping, casting, or ladle treatment emissions and direct
them to a control device other than one associated with the electric
arc furnace, you must not discharge into the atmosphere any captured
emissions containing particulate matter in excess of 4.0 mg/dscm.
    (d) MOR process. You must not discharge into the atmosphere from
any new, reconstructed or existing MOR process exhaust gases containing
particulate matter in excess of 3.9 mg/dscm.
    (e) Crushing and screening equipment. You must not discharge into
the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed, or existing piece of
equipment associated with crushing and screening exhaust gases
containing particulate matter in excess of 13 mg/dscm.
    (f) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator that may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records
and inspection of the source.

Sec.  63.1624  What are the operational and work practice standards for
new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?

    (a) Process fugitive emissions sources. (1) You must prepare, and
at all times operate according to, a process fugitive emissions
ventilation plan that documents the equipment and operations designed
to effectively capture process fugitive emissions. The plan will be
deemed to achieve effective capture if it consists of the following
elements:
    (i) Documentation of engineered hoods and secondary fugitive
capture systems designed according to the most recent, at the time of
construction, ventilation design principles recommended by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The process
fugitive emissions capture systems must be designed to achieve
sufficient air changes to evacuate the collection area frequently
enough to ensure process fugitive emissions are effectively collected
by the ventilation system and ducted to the control device(s). The
required ventilation systems should also use properly positioned
hooding to take advantage of the inherent air flows of the source and
capture systems that minimize air flows while also intercepting natural
air flows or creating air flows to contain the fugitive emissions.
Include a schematic for each building indicating duct sizes and
locations, hood sizes and locations, control device types, size and
locations and exhaust locations. The design plan must identify the key
operating parameters and measurement locations to ensure proper
operation of the system and establish monitoring parameter values that
reflect effective capture.
    (ii) List of critical maintenance actions and the schedule to
conduct them.
    (2) You must submit a copy of the process fugitive emissions
ventilation plan to the designated permitting authority on or before
the applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in
Sec.  63.1621 in electronic format and whenever an update is made to
the plan. The requirement for you to operate the facility according to
the written process fugitives ventilation plan and specifications must
be incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued
by the designated permitting authority under part 70 or 71 of this
chapter, as applicable.
    (3) You must update the information required in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section every 5 years or whenever there is a
significant change in variables that affect process fugitives
ventilation design such as the addition of a new process.
    (b) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. (1) You must prepare, and at all
times operate according to, an outdoor fugitive dust control plan that
describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to control
outdoor fugitive dust emissions from the individual fugitive dust
sources at the facility.
    (2) You must submit a copy of the outdoor fugitive dust control
plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the applicable
compliance date for the affected source as specified in Sec.  63.1621.
The requirement for you to operate the facility according to a written
outdoor fugitive dust control plan must be incorporated in the
operating permit for the facility that is issued by the designated
permitting authority under part 70 or 71 of this chapter, as
applicable.
    (3) You may use existing manuals that describe the measures in
place to control outdoor fugitive dust sources required as part of a
state implementation plan or other federally enforceable requirement
for particulate matter to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.

Sec.  63.1625  What are the performance test and compliance
requirements for new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?

    (a) Performance testing. (1) All performance tests must be
conducted according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7.
    (2) Each performance test in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section must consist of three separate and complete runs using the
applicable test methods.
    (3) Each run must be conducted under conditions that are
representative of normal process operations.
    (4) Performance tests conducted on air pollution control devices
serving electric arc furnaces must be conducted such that at least one
tapping period, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, whichever
is less, is included in at least two of the three runs. The sampling
time for each run must be at least three times the average tapping
period of the tested furnace, but no less than 60 minutes.
    (5) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraph
(c) of this section under such conditions as the Administrator
specifies based on representative performance of the affected source
for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
    (b) Test methods. The following test methods in appendices of part
60 or 63 of this chapter or as specified elsewhere must be used to
determine compliance with the emission standards.

    (1) Method 1 of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select the
sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
    (2) Method 2 of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (3)(i) Method 3A or 3B of appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 (with
integrated bag sampling) to determine the outlet stack and inlet oxygen
and CO2 content.
    (ii) You must measure CO2 concentrations at both the
inlet and outlet of the positive pressure fabric filter in conjunction
with the pollutant sampling in order to determine isokinetic sampling
rates.
    (iii) As an alternative to EPA Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC-19-10-
1981-Part 10 may be used (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (4) Method 4 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5)(i) Method 5 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the
particulate matter concentration of the stack gas for negative pressure
baghouses and positive pressure baghouses with stacks.
    (ii) Method 5D of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate of the stack
gas for positive pressure baghouses without stacks.
    (iii) The sample volume for each run must be a minimum of 4.0 cubic
meters (141.2 cubic feet). For Method 5 testing only, you may choose to
collect less than 4.0 cubic meters per run provided that the filterable
mass collected (i.e., net filter mass plus mass of nozzle, probe and
filter holder rinses) is equal to or greater than 10 mg. If the total
mass collected for two of three of the runs is less than 10 mg, you
must conduct at least one additional test run that produces at least 10
mg of filterable mass collected (i.e., at a greater sample volume).
Report the results of all test runs.
    (6) Method 30B of appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 to measure
mercury. Apply the minimum sample volume determination procedures as
per the method.
    (7)(i) Method 26A of appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
outlet stack or inlet hydrochloric acid concentration.
    (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 2 cubic meters.
    (8)(i) Method 316 of appendix A of this part to determine outlet
stack or inlet formaldehyde.
    (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 cubic meter.
    (9) ASTM D7520-13 to determine opacity (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14) with the following conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-13, you
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) You must have standard operating procedures in place including
daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is
within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM
D7520-13.
    (iii) You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in
Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data
sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
    (iv) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 20 percent opacity for any one reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this method does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-13 and these
requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
    (10) California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 429 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (11) The owner or operator may use alternative measurement methods
approved by the Administrator following the procedures described in
Sec.  63.7(f).
    (c) Compliance demonstration with the emission standards--(1)
Initial performance test. You must conduct an initial performance test
for air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec.
63.1623(a), (b)(1), and (c) through (e) to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable emission standards.
    (2) Periodic performance test. (i) You must conduct annual
particulate matter tests for wet scrubber air pollution control devices
subject to Sec.  63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standards.
    (ii) You must conduct particulate matter tests every 5 years for
fabric filter air pollution control devices subject to Sec.
63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission
standards.
    (iii) You must conduct annual mercury performance tests for wet
scrubber and fabric filter air pollution control devices or vent stacks
subject to Sec.  63.1623(a)(2) to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standards.
    (iv) You must conduct PAH performance tests for wet scrubber and
fabric filter air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to
Sec.  63.1623(a)(3) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
emission standards.
    (A) For furnaces producing silicomanganese, you must conduct a PAH
performance test every 5 years for each furnace that produces
silicomanganese subject to Sec.  63.1623(a)(3).
    (B) For furnaces producing ferromanganese, you must conduct a PAH
performance test every 3 months or 2,190 cumulative hours of
ferromanganese production for each furnace subject to Sec.
63.1623(a)(3).
    (C) If a furnace producing ferromanganese demonstrates compliance
with four consecutive PAH tests, the owner/operator may petition the
permitting authority to request reduced frequency of testing to
demonstrate compliance with the PAH emission standards. However, this
PAH compliance testing cannot be reduced to less than once per year.
    (v) You must conduct ongoing performance tests every 5 years for
air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec.
63.1623(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(1), and (c) through (e) to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission standards.
    (3) Compliance is demonstrated for all sources performing emissions
tests if the average concentration for the three runs comprising the
performance test does not exceed the standard.
    (4) Operating limits. You must establish parameter operating limits
according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section. Unless
otherwise specified, compliance with each established operating limit
shall be demonstrated for each 24-hour operating day.
    (i) For a wet particulate matter scrubber, you must establish the
minimum liquid flow rate and pressure drop as your operating limits
during the three-run performance test. If you use a wet particulate
matter scrubber and you conduct separate performance tests for
particulate matter, you must establish one set of minimum liquid flow
rate and pressure drop operating limits. If you conduct multiple
performance tests, you must set the minimum liquid flow rate and
pressure drop operating limits at the highest minimum hourly average

values established during the performance tests.
    (ii) For a wet acid gas scrubber, you must establish the minimum
liquid flow rate and pH, as your operating limits during the three-run
performance test. If you use a wet acid gas scrubber and you conduct
separate performance tests for hydrochloric acid, you must establish
one set of minimum liquid flow rate and pH operating limits. If you
conduct multiple performance tests, you must set the minimum liquid
flow rate and pH operating limits at the highest minimum hourly average
values established during the performance tests.
    (iii) For emission sources with fabric filters that choose to
demonstrate continuous compliance through bag leak detection systems
you must install a bag leak detection system according to the
requirements in Sec.  63.1626(d) and you must set your operating limit
such that the sum duration of bag leak detection system alarms does not
exceed 5 percent of the process operating time during a 6-month period.
    (iv) If you choose to demonstrate continuous compliance through a
particulate matter CEMS, you must determine an operating limit
(particulate matter concentration in mg/dscm) during performance
testing for initial particulate matter compliance. The operating limit
will be the average of the PM filterable results of the three Method 5
or Method 5D of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 performance test runs.
To determine continuous compliance, the hourly average PM
concentrations will be averaged on a rolling 30 operating day basis.
Each 30 operating day average will have to meet the PM operating limit.
    (d) Compliance demonstration with shop building opacity standards.
(1)(i) If you are subject to Sec.  63.1623(b), you must conduct opacity
observations of the shop building to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable opacity standards according to Sec.  63.6(h)(5), which
addresses conducting opacity or visible emission observations.
    (ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM
D7520-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), for a period
that includes at least one complete furnace process cycle for each
furnace.
    (iii) For a shop building that contains more than one furnace, you
must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM D7520-13, for a
period that includes one tapping period from each furnace located in
the shop building.
    (iv) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM
D7520-13, for a one hour period that includes at least one pouring for
each MOR located in the shop building.
    (v) You must conduct the opacity observations at least once per
week for each shop building containing one or more furnaces or MOR.
    (vi) You may reduce the frequency of observations to once per month
for each shop building that demonstrates compliance with the weekly 8-
percent opacity limit for 26 consecutive complete observations that
span a period of at least 26 weeks. Any monthly observation in excess
of 8-percent opacity will return that shop building opacity observation
to a weekly compliance schedule. You may reduce the frequency of
observations again to once per month for each shop building that
demonstrates compliance with the weekly 8-percent opacity limit after
another 26 consecutive complete observations that span a period of at
least 26 weeks.
    (2) You must determine shop building opacity operating parameters
based on either monitoring data collected during the compliance
demonstration or established in an engineering assessment.
    (i) If you choose to establish parameters based on the initial
compliance demonstration, you must simultaneously monitor parameter
values for one of the following: The capture system fan motor amperes
and all capture system damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate
to the air pollution control device and all capture system damper
positions, or volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood
that comprises the capture system. Subsequently you must monitor these
parameters according to Sec.  63.1626(g) and ensure they remain within
10 percent of the value recorded during the compliant opacity readings.
    (ii) If you choose to establish parameters based on an engineering
assessment, then a design analysis shall include, for example,
specifications, drawings, schematics and ventilation system diagrams
prepared by the owner or operator or capture or control system
manufacturer or vendor that describes the shop building opacity system
ventilation design based on acceptable engineering texts. The design
analysis shall address vent stream characteristics and ventilation
system design operating parameters such as fan amps, damper position,
flow rate and/or other specified parameters.
    (iii) You may petition the Administrator to reestablish these
parameter ranges whenever you can demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the electric arc furnace or MOR operating conditions
upon which the parameter ranges were previously established are no
longer applicable. The values of these parameter ranges determined
during the most recent demonstration of compliance must be maintained
at the appropriate level for each applicable period.
    (3) You will demonstrate continuing compliance with the opacity
standards by following the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.
63.1626(g) and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified
in Sec.  63.1628(b)(5).
    (e) Compliance demonstration with the operational and work practice
standards--(1) Process fugitive emissions sources. You will demonstrate
compliance by developing and maintaining a process fugitives
ventilation plan, by reporting any deviations from the plan and by
taking necessary corrective actions to correct deviations or
deficiencies.
    (2) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. You will demonstrate compliance
by developing and maintaining an outdoor fugitive dust control plan, by
reporting any deviations from the plan and by taking necessary
corrective actions to correct deviations or deficiencies.
    (3) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. You will
demonstrate compliance with the bag leak detection system requirements
by developing an analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating
conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection
systems in Sec.  60.57c(h) of this chapter.

Sec.  63.1626  What monitoring requirements must I meet?

    (a) Baghouse monitoring. You must prepare, and at all times operate
according to, a standard operating procedures manual that describes in
detail procedures for inspection, maintenance and bag leak detection
and corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric filters or
cartridge filters) that are used to control process vents, process
fugitive, or outdoor fugitive dust emissions from any source subject to
the emissions standards in Sec.  63.1623.
    (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual for
baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to the
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
    (c) Unless the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak detection
system or CEMS, the procedures that you specify in the standard
operating procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance
must, at a minimum,

include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must observe the baghouse outlet on a daily basis for the
presence of any visible emissions.
    (2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, you
must conduct the following activities:
    (i) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
    (ii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
    (iii) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
    (iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper
functioning through visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (v) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that the bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. Such checks are not required for shaker-
type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
    (vi) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse structure through visual inspection of the baghouse interior
for air leaks.
    (vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup and
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent
means.
    (d) Bag leak detection system. (1) For each baghouse used to
control emissions from an electric arc furnace, you must install,
operate and maintain a bag leak detection system according to
paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this section, unless a system meeting
the requirements of paragraph (o) of this section, for a CEMS and
continuous emissions rate monitoring system, is installed for
monitoring the concentration of particulate matter. You may choose to
install, operate and maintain a bag leak detection system for any other
baghouse in operation at the facility according to paragraphs (d)(2)
through (4) of this section.
    (2) The procedures you specified in the standard operating
procedures manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a minimum,
a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the
baghouse manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term
maintenance.
    (3) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(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 1.0 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.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in
a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14) and the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation and adjustment of the
system.
    (v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating
procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this section. You
cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease
the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless
such adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection that
demonstrates that the baghouse is in good operating condition.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detector downstream of the
baghouse.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (4) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual
required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that
specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a
minimum, the procedures that you will use to determine and record the
time and cause of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to
minimize emissions as specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
    (i) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (ii) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (d)(4)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section.
    (A) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
    (B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (C) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
    (D) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (F) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (e) If you use a wet particulate matter scrubber, you must collect
the pressure drop and liquid flow rate monitoring system data according
to Sec.  63.1628, reduce the data to 24-hour block averages and
maintain the 24-hour average pressure drop and liquid flow-rate at or
above the operating limits established during the performance test
according to Sec.  63.1625(c)(4)(i).
    (f) If you use curtains or partitions to prevent process fugitive
emissions from escaping the area around the process fugitive emission
source or other parts of the building, you must perform quarterly
inspections of the physical condition of these curtains or partitions
to determine if there are any tears or openings.
    (g) Shop building opacity. In order to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the opacity standards in Sec.  63.1623, you must comply
with the requirements Sec.  63.1625(d)(1) and one of the monitoring
options in paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this section. The selected
option must be consistent with that selected during the initial
performance test described in Sec.  63.1625(d)(2). Alternatively, you
may use the provisions of Sec.  63.8(f) to request approval to use an
alternative monitoring method.
    (1) If you choose to establish operating parameters during the
compliance test as specified in Sec.  63.1625(d)(2)(i), you must meet
one of the following requirements.
    (i) Check and record the control system fan motor amperes and
capture system damper positions once per shift.
    (ii) Install, calibrate and maintain a monitoring device that
continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately
ducted hood.
    (iii) Install, calibrate and maintain a monitoring device that
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the air
pollution control device and check and record the capture system damper
positions once per shift.

    (2) If you choose to establish operating parameters during the
compliance test as specified in Sec.  63.1625(d)(2)(ii), you must
monitor the selected parameter(s) on a frequency specified in the
assessment and according to a method specified in the engineering
assessment
    (3) All flow rate monitoring devices must meet the following
requirements:
    (i) Be installed in an appropriate location in the exhaust duct
such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result.
    (ii) Have an accuracy 10 percent over its normal
operating range and be calibrated according to the manufacturer's
instructions.
    (4) The Administrator may require you to demonstrate the accuracy
of the monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 1 and 2 of appendix A-1
of part 60 of this chapter.
    (5) Failure to maintain the appropriate capture system parameters
(e.g., fan motor amperes, flow rate and/or damper positions)
establishes the need to initiate corrective action as soon as
practicable after the monitoring excursion in order to minimize excess
emissions.
    (h) Furnace capture system. You must perform quarterly (once every
three months) inspections of the furnace fugitive capture system
equipment to ensure that the hood locations have not been changed or
obstructed because of contact with cranes or ladles, quarterly
inspections of the physical condition of hoods and ductwork to the
control device to determine if there are any openings or leaks in the
ductwork, quarterly inspections of the hoods and ductwork to determine
if there are any flow constrictions in ductwork due to dents or
accumulated dust and quarterly examinations of the operational status
of flow rate controllers (pressure sensors, dampers, damper switches,
etc.) to ensure they are operating correctly. Any deficiencies must be
recorded and proper maintenance and repairs performed.
    (i) Requirements for sources using CMS. If you demonstrate
compliance with any applicable emissions limit through use of a
continuous monitoring system (CMS), where a CMS includes a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as well as a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring
plan and submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at
least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation (where
applicable) of your CMS. Your site-specific monitoring plan must
address the monitoring system design, data collection and the quality
assurance and quality control elements outlined in this paragraph and
in Sec.  63.8(d). You must install, operate and maintain each CMS
according to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring
plan. Using the process described in Sec.  63.8(f)(4), you may request
approval of monitoring system quality assurance and quality control
procedures alternative to those specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through
(6) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (1) The performance criteria and design specifications for the
monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, detector
signal analyzer and data acquisition and calculations;
    (2) Sampling interface location such that the monitoring system
will provide representative measurements;
    (3) Equipment performance checks, system accuracy audits, or other
audit procedures;
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1) and (3);
    (5) Conditions that define a continuous monitoring system that is
out of control consistent with Sec.  63.8(c)(7)(i) and for responding
to out of control periods consistent with Sec.  63.8(c)(7)(ii) and
(c)(8) or Table 1 to this subpart, as applicable; and
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with provisions in Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i), and Table 1 to
this subpart, as applicable.
    (j) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CPMS,
you must install, operate and maintain each continuous parameter
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (7) of this section.
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
    (2) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as
applicable, system accuracy audits and required zero and span
adjustments), you must operate the CMS at all times the affected source
is operating. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system
to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in
part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
You are required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to
monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to
operation as expeditiously as practicable.
    (3) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must
use all the data collected during all other required data collection
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
    (4) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required quality
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, system accuracy audits and required zero and
span adjustments), failure to collect required data is a deviation of
the monitoring requirements.
    (5) You must conduct other CPMS equipment performance checks,
system accuracy audits, or other audit procedures specified in your
site-specific monitoring plan at least once every 12 months.
    (6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (7) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration and
validation check.
    (k) CPMS for measuring gaseous flow. (1) Use a flow sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of the flow rate or 10 cubic feet
per minute, whichever is greater;
    (2) Check all mechanical connections for leakage at least every
month; and
    (3) Perform a visual inspection at least every 3 months of all
components of the flow CPMS for physical and operational integrity and
all electrical connections for oxidation and galvanic corrosion if your
flow CPMS is not equipped with a redundant flow sensor.
    (l) CPMS for measuring liquid flow. (1) Use a flow sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flow rate; and
    (2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (m) CPMS for measuring pressure. (1) Minimize or eliminate
pulsating pressure, vibration and internal and external corrosion; and
    (2) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of
water or

a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure
range.
    (3) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
    (n) CPMS for measuring pH. (1) Ensure the sample is properly mixed
and representative of the fluid to be measured.
    (2) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every
eight hours of process operation.
    (o) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you are using a CEMS to measure
particulate matter emissions to meet requirements of this subpart, you
must install, certify, operate and maintain the particulate matter CEMS
as specified in paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS
according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13 of this chapter
and Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (2) During each PM correlation testing run of the CEMS required by
Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, PM and
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) collect data concurrently (or within a 30-
to 60-minute period) by both the CEMS and by conducting performance
tests using Method 5 or 5D at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or Method 17
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6.
    (3) Perform quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration
drift tests in accordance with Procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
F. Relative Response Audits must be performed annually and Response
Correlation Audits must be performed every 3 years.
    (4) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS relative
accuracy test audit or performance test conducted to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy
test audit data and the results of the performance test as specified in
Sec.  63.1628(e).

Sec.  63.1627  What notification requirements must I meet?

    (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of
Sec.  63.9. Electronic notifications are encouraged when possible.
    (b)(1) You must submit the process fugitive ventilation plan
required under Sec.  63.1624(a), the outdoor fugitive dust control plan
required under Sec.  63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for
CMS required under Sec.  63.1626(i) and the standard operating
procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a) to the
Administrator or delegated authority. You must submit this notification
no later than June 30, 2016. For sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after June 30, 2015, you must submit this notification
no later than 180 days before startup of the constructed or
reconstructed ferromanganese or silicomanganese production facility.
For an affected source that has received a construction permit from the
Administrator or delegated authority on or before June 30, 2015, you
must submit this notification no later than June 30, 2016.
    (2) The plans and procedures documents submitted as required under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be submitted to the Administrator
in electronic format and whenever an update is made to the procedure.

Sec.  63.1628  What recordkeeping and reporting requirements must I
meet?

    (a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that
are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged and
required for some records and reports.
    (2) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years after the
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) You must maintain, for a period of 5 years, records of the
information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (2) An identification of 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 corrective actions taken and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required
under Sec.  63.1626(c) as part of the practices described in the
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.
63.1626(a).
    (4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate
values for wet scrubbers used to control particulate matter emissions
as required in Sec.  63.1626(e), identification of periods when the 1-
hour average pressure drop and water flow rate values are below the
established minimum operating limits and an explanation of the
corrective actions taken.
    (5) Electronic records of the shop building capture system
monitoring required under Sec.  63.1626(g)(1) and (2), as applicable,
or identification of periods when the capture system parameters were
not maintained and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (6) Records of the results of quarterly inspections of the furnace
capture system required under Sec.  63.1626(h).
    (7) Electronic records of the continuous flow monitors or pressure
monitors required under Sec.  63.1626(i) and (j) and an identification
of periods when the flow rate or pressure was not maintained as
required in Sec.  63.1626(e).
    (8) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed to
monitor particulate matter emissions meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.1626(i).
    (9) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup and/or
shutdown.
    (10) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (11) Records that explain the periods when the procedures outlined
in the process fugitives ventilation plan required under Sec.
63.1624(a), the fugitives dust control plan required under Sec.
63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required under
Sec.  63.1626(i) and the standard operating procedures manual for
baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a).
    (c) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements
specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced
in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) You must submit reports no less frequently than specified under
Sec.  63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions.
    (2) Once a source reports a violation of the standard or excess
emissions, you must follow the reporting format required under Sec.
63.10(e)(3) until a request to reduce reporting frequency is approved
by the Administrator.
    (d) In addition to the information required under the applicable
sections of Sec.  63.10, you must include in the reports required under
paragraph (c) of this section the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Reports that identify and explain the periods when the
procedures outlined in the process fugitives ventilation plan required
under Sec.  63.1624(a), the fugitives dust control plan required under
Sec.  63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required
under Sec.  63.1626(i) and the

standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.
63.1626(a) were not followed.
    (2) Reports that identify the periods when the average hourly
pressure drop or flow rate of wet scrubbers used to control particulate
emissions dropped below the levels established in Sec.  63.1626(e) and
an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (3) Bag leak detection system. Reports including the following
information:
    (i) Records of all alarms.
    (ii) Description of the actions taken following each bag leak
detection system alarm.
    (4) Reports of the shop building capture system monitoring required
under Sec.  63.1626(g)(1) and (2), as applicable, identification of
periods when the capture system parameters were not maintained and an
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (5) Reports of the results of quarterly inspections of the furnace
capture system required under Sec.  63.1626(h).
    (6) Reports of the CPMS required under Sec.  63.1626, an
identification of periods when the monitored parameters were not
maintained as required in Sec.  63.1626 and corrective actions taken.
    (7) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the
report must include the number, duration and a brief description for
each type of malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and
caused or may have caused any applicable emissions limitation to be
exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken
by the owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1623(f), including
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    (e) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS relative
accuracy test audit or performance test conducted to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy
test audit data and the results of the performance test in the method
specified by paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. The results of
the performance test must contain the information listed in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section.
    (1)(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated
fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's
ERT Web site once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A).
    (B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the
results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (A) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are
supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you
must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via
the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX.) Performance
evaluation data must be submitted in a file format generated through
the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance
evaluation data in an electronic file format consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, once the XML schema is
available. If you claim that some of the performance evaluation
information being transmitted is CBI, you must submit a complete file
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternative electronic
file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk, flash drive
or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The
electronic storage media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
ERT file or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to
the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph
(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    (B) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring
systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's
ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the results of
the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (2) The results of a performance test shall include the purpose of
the test; a brief process description; a complete unit description,
including a description of feed streams and control devices; sampling
site description; pollutants measured; description of sampling and
analysis procedures and any modifications to standard procedures;
quality assurance procedures; record of operating conditions, including
operating parameters for which limits are being set, during the test;
record of preparation of standards; record of calibrations; raw data
sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for field and laboratory
analyses; chain-of-custody documentation; explanation of laboratory
data qualifiers; example calculations of all applicable stack gas
parameters, emission rates, percent reduction rates and analytical
results, as applicable; and any other information required by the test
method, a relevant standard, or the Administrator.

Sec.  63.1629  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA,
or a delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a
state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart.
Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot be transferred to
the state, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.1620
and 63.1621 and 63.1623 and 63.1624.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec.  63.90 and as required in
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90 and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec.  63.10(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90 and as required in this
subpart.

0
4. Section 63.1650 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1650  Applicability and compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (d) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply to owners and operators of ferroalloy
production facilities subject to this subpart.
    (e) * * *
    (2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected
source that commences construction or reconstruction after August 4,
1998 and before November 23, 2011, must comply with the requirements of
this subpart by May 20, 1999 or upon startup of operations, whichever
is later.

0
5. Section 63.1652 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1652  Emission standards.

* * * * *
    (f) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator that may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records
and inspection of the source.

0
6. Section 63.1656 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(7) and (e)(1); and
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1656  Performance testing, test methods, and compliance
demonstrations.

    (a) * * *
    (6) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraph
(c) of this section under such conditions as the Administrator
specifies based on representative performance of the affected source
for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
    (b) * * *
    (7) Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
opacity. ASTM D7520-13, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' may be used
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) with the following
conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-13, the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-13.
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one
reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-13 and
these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Fugitive dust sources. Failure to have a fugitive dust control
plan or failure to report deviations from the plan and take necessary
corrective action would be a violation of the general duty to ensure
that fugitive dust sources are operated and maintained in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions per Sec.  63.1652(f).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1657 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(3),
and (c)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1657  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec.
63.1652(f).
    (b) * * *
    (3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec.
63.1652(f).
    (c) * * *
    (7) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec.
63.1652(f).

0
8. Section 63.1659 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1659  Reporting requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Reporting malfunctions. If a malfunction occurred during the
reporting period, the report must include the number, duration and a
brief description for each type of

malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded.
The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner
or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1652(f), including actions taken
to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1660 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1660  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment;
    (ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1652(f), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation;
* * * * *

0
10. Add Table 1 to the end of subpart XXX to read as follows:

 Table 1--to Subpart XXX of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                               Subpart XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               subpart XXX            Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.2...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.3...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.4...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.5...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(a), (b), (c)......  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(d)................  No...............  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1623(g) and
                                                    63.1652(f) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).............  No...............  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............  .....................