reduced.
    Based on all of the above information, we conclude that the risks
after implementation of the proposed controls are acceptable. Based on
our research and analysis, we did not identify any cost-effective
controls beyond those proposed above that would achieve further
reduction in risk. While in theory the 2011 proposed approach of total
enclosure would provide some additional risk reduction, the additional
risk reduction is minimal and, as noted, we have substantial doubts
that it would be feasible for these facilities. Therefore we conclude
that the controls to achieve acceptable risks (described above) will
also provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?

1. Metal HAP Emissions Limits From Stacks
    As mentioned in the previous section, the available test data from
the five furnaces located at two facilities indicate that all of these
furnaces have PM emission levels that are well below their respective
emission limits (the emission limits are based on size and product
being produced in the furnace) in the 1999 MACT rule. These findings
demonstrate that the add-on emission control technologies (venturi
scrubber, positive pressure fabric filter, negative pressure fabric
filter) used to control emissions from the furnaces are quite effective
in reducing particulate matter (used as a surrogate for metal HAP) and
that all of the facilities have emissions well below the current
limits.
    Under section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), we are required
to revise emission standards, taking into account developments in
practices, processes and control technologies. The particulate matter
(PM) emissions, used as a surrogate for metal HAP, that were reported
by the industry in response to the 2010 ICR were far below the level
specified in the current NESHAP, indicating improvements in the control
of PM emissions since promulgation of the current NESHAP. We re-
evaluated the data received in 2010, along with additional data
received in 2012 and 2013, to determine whether it is appropriate to
propose revised emissions limits for PM from the furnace process vents.
The re-evaluation of the PM limits was completed using available PM
emissions test data from all the furnaces and consideration of
variability across those data. More details regarding the available PM
data and this re-evaluation are provided in the Revised Technology
Review for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the
Supplemental Proposal, which is available in the docket. Unlike PAH and
mercury stack data, we did not see significant differences in
variability of the PM data sets depending on product produced (e.g.,
ferromanganese or silicomanganese). Therefore, we are not proposing to
subcategorize the PM stack limits based on product type.
    Based on this analysis, we determined that it is appropriate to
propose revised PM limits for the furnaces and that the revised
existing source furnace stack PM emissions limit should be 25
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). Therefore, we are
proposing a revised emissions limit of 25 mg/dscm for existing furnace
stack PM emissions in this supplemental proposal. This emission limit
is slightly higher than the existing source furnace PM emission limit
of 24 mg/dscm that we proposed in the 2011 proposal. The revised
emissions limit is based on more data than the previous proposed limit.
No additional add-on controls are expected to be required by the
facilities to meet the revised existing source limit of 25 mg/dscm.
However, this revised limit would result in significantly lower
``allowable'' PM emissions from the source category compared to the
level of emissions allowed by the 1999 MACT rule and would help prevent
any emissions increases. To demonstrate compliance, we propose these
sources would be required to conduct periodic performance testing and
develop and operate according to a baghouse operating plan or
continuously monitor venturi scrubber operating parameters. We also
propose that furnace baghouses would be required to be equipped with
bag leak detection systems (BLDS).
    The revised new source PM standard for furnaces was determined by
evaluating the available data from the best performing furnace (which
was determined to be furnace 2 at Felman). The new source MACT
limit was determined to be 4.0 mg/dscm based on data from furnace
2 and was selected as the proposed MACT emissions limit for PM
from new and reconstructed source furnace stacks.
    The PM emission limit for the local ventilation control device
outlet was also re-evaluated using compliance test data and test data
from the 2012 ICR. A local ventilation control device is used to
capture tapping, casting, or ladle treatment emissions and direct them
to a control device other than one associated with the furnace. The
2011 proposal included a proposed PM limit for the local ventilation
control device that was based on PM data from the furnaces. After the
2011 proposal, we received test data from 3 different emissions tests
(for a total of 9 test runs) specifically for this local ventilation
source. We determined these data were more appropriate for the
development of a limit for this source than the furnace data we had
used for the 2011 proposal. There is currently only one local
ventilation control device outlet emissions source in this source
category.
    Using the new data for the one existing local ventilation source,
we calculated a revised emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm and determined
that this was an appropriate emissions limit for this source. Therefore
we are proposing this emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm for existing, new
and reconstructed local ventilation control device emissions sources.
2. Metal HAP Emissions From Process Fugitives
    In the 2011 proposal, we concluded that a proposed requirement for
sources to enclose the furnace building, collect fugitive emissions
such that the furnace building is maintained under negative pressure
and duct those emissions to a control device represented an advance in
emissions control measures since the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP was
originally promulgated in 1999. Commenters on the 2011 proposal
disagreed with our assessment. Based on these comments, we reassessed
the proposed requirement for negative pressure ventilation and
determined that the installation and operation of the proposed system
may not be feasible and would likely be very costly. For example, the
recent secondary lead NESHAP requires use of such a system, but we
recognize that a much smaller volume of air must be evacuated at
secondary lead facilities because of their

smaller size compared to ferroalloy facilities. We agree that we had
underestimated the costs of such negative pressure systems and we have
provided updated cost analyses.
    Commenters also raised concerns about worker safety and comfort in
designing and operating such systems based on historical examples. We
believe that such issues can be overcome with proper ventilation design
and installation of air conditioning systems and other steps to ensure
these issues are not a problem. However, after further review and
evaluation we conclude that it would be quite costly for these
facilities to become fully enclosed with negative pressure and achieve
the appropriate ventilation and conditioning of indoor air.
    Going back to the original goal of identifying advances in
emissions control measures since the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP was
promulgated in 1999, we have arrived at a different conclusion than we
described in the 2011 proposal. We re-evaluated the costs and
operational feasibility associated with the full building enclosure
with negative pressure that we proposed in 2011. We consulted with
ventilation experts who have worked with hot process fugitives similar
to those found in the ferroalloys industry (e.g., electric arc furnace
steel mini-mills and secondary lead smelters). We determined that
substantially more air flow, air exchanges, ductwork, fans and control
devices and supporting structural improvements would be needed
(compared to what we had estimated in the 2011 proposal) to achieve
negative pressure and also ensure adequate ventilation and air quality
in these large furnace buildings. Therefore, we determined that the
proposed negative pressure approach presented in the 2011 proposal
would be much more expensive than what we had estimated in 2011 and may
not be feasible for these facilities.
    We also evaluated another option based on enhanced capture of the
process fugitive emissions using a combination of effective local
capture with primary hooding close to the emissions sources and
secondary capture of remaining fugitives with roof-line capture hoods
and control devices. These buildings are currently designed such that
fugitive emissions that are not captured by the primary hoods flow
upward with a natural draft to the open roof vents and are vented to
the atmosphere uncontrolled. Under our enhanced control scenario, the
primary capture close to the emissions sources would be significantly
improved with effective local hooding and ventilation and the remaining
fugitive emissions (that are not captured by the primary hoods) would
be drawn up to the roof-line and captured with secondary hooding and
vented to control devices.
    In cases where additional collection of fugitives from the roof
monitors is needed to comply with building opacity limits, fume
collection areas may be isolated via baffles (so the area above the
furnace where fumes collect may be kept separated from ``empty'' spaces
in large buildings) and roof monitors over fume collection areas can be
sealed and directed to control devices. The fugitive emission capture
system should achieve inflow at the building floor, but outflow toward
the roof where most of the remaining fugitives would be captured by the
secondary hooding. We conclude that a rigorous, systematic examination
of the ventilation requirements throughout the building is the key to
developing a fugitive emission capture system (consisting of primary
hoods, secondary hoods, enclosures and/or building ventilation ducted
to particulate matter control devices) that can be designed and
operated to achieve very low levels of fugitive emissions. Such an
evaluation considers worker health, safety and comfort and it is
designed to optimize existing ventilation options (fan capacity and
hood design) and add additional capture options to meet specified
design criteria determined through the evaluation process. Thus, we
conclude that an enhanced capture system based on these design
principles does represent an advancement in technology. We estimate
that this control scenario would capture about 95 percent of the
process fugitive emissions and vent those emissions to PM control
devices. This enhanced local capture option is described in more detail
in the Revised Technology Review document and in the Cost Impacts of
Control Options to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions for the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP Supplemental Proposal document (Cost Impacts
document) which are available in the docket.
    Under this control option, the cost elements vary by plant and
furnace and include the following:
     Curtains or doors surrounding furnace tops to contain
fugitive emissions;
     Improvements to hoods collecting tapping emissions;
     Upgrade 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 capture are collected in the roof canopy over
process areas through addition of partitions, hoods, and then directed
through ducts to control devices.
    We estimate the total capital costs of installing the required
ductwork, fans and control devices under the enhanced capture option
(which is described above and in more detail in the Cost Impacts
document) to be $37.6 million and the total annualized cost to be $7.1
million for the two plants. We estimate that this option would reduce
metal HAP emissions by 75 tons per year, resulting in a cost per ton of
metal HAP removed to be $94,600 per ton ($47 per pound). The total
estimated HAP reduction for the enhanced capture option is 77 tons per
year at a cost per ton of $91,900 ($46 per pound). We also estimate
that this option would achieve PM emission reductions of 229 tons per
year, resulting in cost per ton of PM removed of $30,900 per ton and
achieve PM2.5 emission reductions of 48 tons per year,
resulting in a cost per ton of PM2.5 removal of $147,000 per
ton. We believe these controls for process fugitive HAP emissions
(described above), which are based on enhanced capture (with primary
and secondary hooding) are feasible for the Ferroalloys Production
source category from a technical standpoint and are cost effective.
This cost effectiveness is in the range of cost effectiveness for PM
and HAP metals from other previous rules. However, it is important to
note that there is no bright line for determining cost-effectiveness
for HAP metals. Each rulemaking is different and various factors must
be considered. Some of the other factors we consider when making
decisions whether to establish standards beyond the floor under section
112(d)(2) or under section 112(d)(6) include, but are not limited to,
the following: which of the HAP metals are being reduced and by how
much; total capital costs; annual costs; and costs compared to total
revenues (e.g., costs to revenue ratios).
    We also re-evaluated the option based on building ventilation as
described in the 2011 proposal. This control option involves
installation of full building ventilation at negative pressure for
furnace buildings instead of installing fugitive controls on individual
tapping and casting operations. This option would require installation
of ductwork

from the roof vents of furnace buildings, additional fans, structural
repairs to buildings and a new fabric filter for each building. Both
Eramet and Felman provided extensive comments and information regarding
implementation of building ventilation, including cost estimates based
on their own engineering analyses. We thoroughly reviewed the comments
and information provided by the companies along with information
gathered from other sources, and then revised our costs analyses
accordingly for this supplemental proposal.
    We estimate that the full building enclosure option would reduce PM
emissions from the facilities by 252 tons per year (and total HAP
emissions by 83 tons per year). The total estimated capital cost for
these fugitive controls is $61 million. Annualized capital cost and
operational and maintenance costs are estimated at $19 million per
year, which results in an estimated cost per ton of metal HAP removed
of $226,000 per ton. We also estimate that this option would achieve PM
emission reductions of 252 tons, resulting in cost per ton of PM
removed of $74,200 per ton and achieve PM2.5 emission
reductions of 53 tons, resulting in a cost per ton of PM2.5
removal of $353,000 per ton. The incremental cost effectiveness
comparing the enhanced capture option to the building ventilation
option is $501,000 per ton of PM removed, $2.4 million per ton of
PM2.5 removed and $2.2 million per ton of HAP removed.
    Based on these analyses, we conclude that the full-building
enclosure option with negative pressure may not be feasible and would
have significant economic impacts on the facilities (including
potential closure for one or more facilities). However, we conclude
that the enhanced local capture option is a feasible and cost-effective
approach to achieve significant reductions in fugitive HAP emissions
and will achieve almost as much reductions as the full-building
enclosure option (229 vs 252 tons PM reductions) thus achieving most of
the risk reductions. In light of the technical feasibility and cost
effectiveness of the enhanced capture options, we are proposing the
enhanced capture option under the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the
CAA.
    In the 2011 proposal, we included a requirement that emissions
exiting from a shop building may not exceed more than 10 percent
opacity for more than one 6-minute period, to be demonstrated every 5
years as part of the periodic required performance tests. For day-to-
day continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
shop building requirements, the 2011 proposal relied on achieving the
requirement to maintain the shop building at negative pressure to at
least 0.007 inches of water. This was to be supplemented by operation
and work practice standards that required preparation of a process
fugitive emissions ventilation plan for each shop building, which would
include schematics with design parameters (e.g., air flow and static
pressure) of the ventilation system. The source would conduct a
baseline survey to verify that building air supply and exhaust are
balanced and the building will be maintained under at least 0.007
inches of water. Such plan would identify critical maintenance
activities and schedules, be submitted to the permitting authority and
incorporated into the source's operating permit. The baseline survey
would be repeated every 5 years or following significant changes to the
ventilation system.
    With the move to the proposed enhanced local capture alternative,
we believe that more frequent opacity monitoring based on an average of
8 percent opacity at all times, is appropriate to demonstrate
compliance with the process fugitives standards. We propose that if the
average opacity reading from the shop building is greater than 8
percent opacity during an observed furnace process cycle, an additional
two more furnace process cycles must be observed such that the average
opacity during the entire observation period is less than 7 percent
opacity. A 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. We
also propose that at no time during operation may any two consecutive
6-minute block opacity readings be greater than 20 percent opacity. We
believe that the longer averaging time for this new opacity limit
(furnace process cycle vs. individual 6-minute averages) addresses
concerns that small variations in an otherwise well-controlled furnace
cycle could result in violations of the opacity standard. The proposed
20 percent ceiling ensures that there are no acute events that could
adversely affect public health. Finally, the lower limit (8 vs. 10
percent opacity) also reflects that sources should achieve lower
overall emissions over a longer averaging period. We propose that
sources be required to conduct opacity observations at least once per
week for each operating furnace and each MOR operation. Similar to the
2011 proposal, continuous monitoring of key ventilation operating
system parameters and periodic inspections of the ventilation systems
would ensure that the ventilation systems are operating as designed.
    Also, similar to the 2011 proposal, we believe that the source
should demonstrate that the overall design of the ventilation system is
adequate to achieve the proposed standards. We propose that the
facilities in this source category must maintain a process fugitives
capture system that is designed to collect 95 percent or more of the
process fugitive emissions from furnace operations, casting MOR
process, ladle raking and slag skimming and crushing and screening
operations and convey the collected emissions to a control device that
meets specified emission limits and the proposed opacity limits. We
believe that if the source designs the plan according to the most
recent (at the time of construction) ventilation design principles
recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACHIH), includes detailed schematics of the ventilation
system design, addresses variables that affect capture efficiency such
as cross drafts and describes protocol or design characteristics to
minimize such events and identifies monitoring and maintenance steps,
the plan will be capable of ensuring the system is properly designed
and continues to operate as designed. We would continue to require that
this plan be submitted to the permitting authority, incorporated into
the source's operating permit and updated every 5 years or when there
is a significant change in variables that affect process fugitive
emissions ventilation design. This list of design criteria, coupled
with the requirement for frequent opacity observations and operating
parameter monitoring will result in enforceable requirements. We
recognize that other design requirements and/or more frequent opacity
observations may yield more compliance certainty, but incur greater
costs and not result in measurable decreases in emissions. However, we
request comment on other measures that could be considered to
demonstrate that well designed (e.g., at least 95 percent overall
capture of process fugitive emissions) plans are developed and
maintained. We request that such comments include costs, measurement
techniques or other information to evaluate their efficacy.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we re-
evaluated compliance requirements associated with the 2011 proposed
amendments to

determine whether we should make changes to those proposed amendments.
Based on this re-evaluation, we are proposing the following changes to
what was proposed in the 2011 proposal.
1. Stack Emission Limits
    In response to public comments, we revisited the format of the
stack emission limits. We concluded that a concentration-based limit is
still appropriate, but we agree that the proposed CO2
concentration correction poses a problem under certain control device
configurations. While such a concentration correction is appropriate
for combustion sources such as boilers, we agree that its use in the
context of ferroalloys production is not helpful. The PM stack limits
proposed above do not include a CO2 correction.
2. Emissions Averaging
    As described above, we have decided to retain a concentration
format for the emissions limits for the stacks but we are not retaining
the emissions averaging provision in this supplemental proposal that we
had proposed in 2011. We believe a concentration format is the best
format for this NESHAP and we have concluded that it is not the best
format to use under an emissions averaging option. We are concerned
that emissions from a large furnace emitting a lower than average
concentration could still emit more emissions than a small furnace with
a higher than average concentration. This could result in a net
increase in emissions from the two furnaces compared to their emissions
if they were not allowed to average emissions. For this reason, we are
proposing not to include the emissions averaging provisions in the
rule, which is a change from the 2011 proposal.
3. Fenceline Monitoring Alternative
    In the 2011 proposal, we assumed there could be control measures
other than maintaining the furnace buildings under negative pressure
that would achieve equivalent emissions reductions. Therefore, to
provide some flexibility to facilities regarding how to achieve the
reductions of fugitive emissions, in lieu of building the full
enclosure and evacuation system described in the 2011 proposal, we
proposed that sources could demonstrate compliance with an alternative
approach by conducting fenceline monitoring and demonstrate that the
ambient concentrations of manganese at their facility boundary remain
at levels no more than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ on a 60-day rolling average.
However, at this time, we believe that the proposed enhanced local
capture option described in this supplemental proposal incorporates the
features anticipated in a non-negative pressure building option and
contains compliance requirements (based on meeting a tight opacity
limit and other requirements) that would assess emissions at the point
of the maximum output, that is, from the roof monitor of the
ferroalloys production building. Furthermore, we determined there were
various issues associated with fenceline monitoring at facilities
within this source category, including highly variable wind patterns,
uncertainties as to how to account for background concentrations and
road dust and the large difference between emissions release heights
(from the high roof vents and stacks) compared to heights where
fenceline monitors would be located (near ground level). Therefore, we
are proposing to not include fenceline monitoring in the final rule as
an alternative method to demonstrate compliance with a specific ambient
level as was described in the 2011 proposal. We believe the proposed
tight opacity limit (which would be measured at the emissions sources),
along with the proposed requirements to install, operate and maintain
effective fugitive capture and control systems, emissions limits for
the stacks and various parametric monitoring requirements, are
appropriate control requirements to ensure effective capture and
control of emissions. However, as described in Section V.I. of this
Notice, we are seeking comments regarding other possible options to
monitor fugitive emissions, including fenceline monitoring as a tool to
monitor trends in ambient concentrations at these locations and to use
this information (along with meteorological data and modeling tools) to
attempt to quantify trends in emissions that are leaving and entering
the facility property.
4. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
    In the 2011 proposal, we proposed to eliminate two provisions that
exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also included provisions for affirmative defense to civil penalties
for violations of emission standards caused by malfunctions. Periods of
startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by contrast,
malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner .
. .'' (40 CFR 63.2). As explained in the 2011 proposal, the EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best
controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the DC Circuit has recognized, the
phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in section 112
requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.
A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a

certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by
`uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other
eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance
by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event
can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source
operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99
percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut
down, the source would go from 99 percent control to zero control until
the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to
standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent
than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning
source. It is reasonable to interpret section 112 to avoid such a
result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with section
112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR Sec.  63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against
a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise
any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal
district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The
same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding
officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised
and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
    As noted above, the 2011 proposal included an affirmative defense
to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions. EPA included
the affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal as it had in several prior
rules in an effort to create a system that incorporates some
flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many
types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while
simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts,
emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond
the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its case-
by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these
circumstances, it included the affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal
and in several prior rules to provide a more formalized approach and
more regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case
enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co.
v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more
formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets beyond the control of
the permit holder.''). Under the EPA's regulatory affirmative defense
provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or
administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the
affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be
assessed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's
Section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 No. 10-1371 (D.C.
Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in Section 112
rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The
court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative
defense for private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the
authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies
exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court
found: ``As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts
determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are
`appropriate.' '' See NRDC at *21 (``[U]nder this statute, deciding
whether penalties are `appropriate' in a given private civil suit is a
job for the courts, not EPA.''). In light of NRDC, the EPA is
withdrawing its proposal to include a regulatory affirmative defense
provision in this rulemaking and in this proposal has eliminated
sections 63.1627 and 63.1662 (the affirmative defense provisions in the
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011
(76 FR 72508)). As explained above, if a source is unable to comply
with emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use
its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as
appropriate. Further, as the DC Circuit recognized, in an EPA or
citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider
any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf.
NRDC at *24. (arguments that violation were caused by unavoidable
technology failure can be made to the courts in future civil cases when
the issue arises). The same logic applies to EPA administrative
enforcement actions.

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The proposed changes to the 2011 proposal that are set out in this
supplementary proposal will not change the compliance dates proposed.
We continue to propose that facilities must comply with the changes set
out in this supplementary proposal (which are being proposed under CAA
sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) for all affected
sources), no later than 2 years after the effective date of the final
rule. We find that 2 years are necessary to complete the installation
of the enhanced local capture system and other controls. In the period
between the effective date of this rule and the compliance date,
existing sources would continue to comply with the existing
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661, which
will protect the health of persons from imminent endangerment.

V. Summary of the Revised Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We maintain, as at the 2011 proposal, that the two manganese
ferroalloys production facilities currently operating in the United
States will be affected by these proposed 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 ferromanganese or silicomanganese 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 ferromanganese or
silicomanganese. Given this uncertainty, our impact analysis is focused
on the two existing sources that are currently operating.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA revised the estimated emissions reductions that are
expected to result from the proposed amendments to the 1999 NESHAP
based on the proposed changes in this supplemental proposal. A detailed
documentation of the analysis can be found in the Cost Impacts
document, which is available in the docket.
    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 proposed amendments in this supplemental proposal would
cut HAP emissions (primarily particulate metal HAP such as manganese,
arsenic and nickel) by about 60 percent from their current levels.
Under the revised proposed 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.
    As noted in the 2011 proposal, based on the emissions data
available to the EPA, we believe that both facilities will be able to
comply with the proposed emissions limits for HCl without additional
controls. Based on the analyses presented today, we also anticipate
that both facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emission
limits for mercury and PAH without additional controls.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the revised proposed amendments, ferroalloys production
facilities are expected to incur costs for the design of a local
ventilation system, resulting in a site-specific local ventilation plan
and installation of custom hoods and ventilation equipment and
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.
    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
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 supplemental proposal analysis, we assumed that
enhanced fugitive capture and control 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
supplemental proposal. We estimate the total capital costs of
installing the required ductwork, fans and control devices under the
enhanced capture option to be $37.6 million and the total annualized
cost to be $7.1 million (2012 dollars) for the two plants. We estimate
that this option would reduce metal HAP emissions by 75 tons, resulting
in a cost per ton of metal HAP removed to be $94,700 per ton ($47 per
pound). The total HAP reduction for the enhanced capture option is
estimated to be 77 tons per year at a cost per ton of $91,900 per ton
($46 per pound). We also estimate that this option would achieve PM
emission reductions of 229 tons per year, resulting in cost per ton of
PM removed of $30,900 per ton and achieve PM2.5 emission
reductions of 48 tons per year, resulting in a cost per ton of
PM2.5 removal of $147,000 per ton.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As a result of the requirements in this supplemental proposal, we
estimate that the total capital cost for the Eramet facility will be
about $25 million and the total annualized costs will be about $5.4
million (in 2012 dollars). For impacts to Felman Production LLC, this
facility is estimated to incur a total capital cost of $12.4 million
and a total annualized costs of just under $1.7 million (in 2012
dollars). In total, these costs could lead to an increase in annualized
cost of as much as 1.8 percent of sales, which serves as an estimate
for the increase in product prices, and a decrease in output of as much
as 9.5 percent. For more information regarding economic impacts, please
refer to the Economic Impact Analysis report that is included in the
public docket for this supplemental proposal.

E. What are the benefits?

    The estimated reductions in HAP emissions (i.e., about 77 tpy) that
would be achieved by this proposal would provide significant benefits
to public health. For example, there would be a significant reduction
in emissions of air toxics (especially Mn, Ni, Cd and PAHs). In
addition to the HAP reductions, we also estimate that this supplemental
proposal would achieve about 48 tons of reductions 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 air pollution 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. 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 quantity but nevertheless essential to consider.
    Directly emitted particles are precursors to secondary formation of
fine particles (PM2.5). 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 avoiding
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) \57\. 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 (e.g., U.S.
EPA, 2012) \58\. 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 these
impacts in its benefits analyses. PM2.5 also increases light
extinction, which is an important aspect of visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 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.
    \58\ 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
Cr\+6\), lead compounds, manganese and nickel) and PAHs. Some of these
HAP are carcinogenic (e.g., arsenic, PAHs) and some 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, we
would expect benefits by reducing exposures to these HAP. More
information about the health effects of these HAP can be found on the
IRIS,\59\ ATSDR,\60\ and California EPA \61\ Web pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ US EPA, 2006. Integrated Risk Information System. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
    \60\ US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2006.
Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html.
    \61\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on the revised risk assessment and technology
review and proposed changes to the previously proposed amendments. We
seek comments on the additional data received in August 2014 (as
described in Section II.D above) and the impacts of those new data on
the analyses and results presented in this notice. We seek comments on
the sufficiency of the proposed controls for process fugitive
emissions, the design of such systems and how best to monitor them to
ensure the systems achieve the estimated efficiency. We also seek
comments on other aspects of this supplemental proposal, including, but
not limited to, the proposed opacity standards.
    The EPA is also soliciting comment with regard to expanding the
monitoring requirements in this NESHAP for fugitive particulate matter
and manganese emissions being released at the roof vents of furnace
buildings using one or more of three different options. For the
following three options the EPA is additionally seeking comment on the
frequency of monitoring and the cost associated with installation,
operation, analysis and ongoing reporting. Additional cost information
of these three monitoring options is included in the Cost Impacts
document, which is available in the docket.
    First, the EPA is soliciting comment on the potential to require
the facilities to take periodic measurements of fugitive particulate
matter and manganese emissions from the roof vents using portable
filter based measurement technologies. The EPA solicits comment on
requiring no less than 3 filter based monitoring systems with
associated anemometers with the goal of quantifying trends in the
process fugitive emissions that are leaving the furnace buildings. We
also solicit comment on the appropriate sampling duration and frequency
of such measurements (e.g., 8-hour samples gathered at each monitor
several times per week or month). This monitoring could provide useful
information regarding the remaining fugitive emissions that will be
escaping the buildings after the facilities install and operate the
improved capture and controls systems that we expect will be installed
to comply with this proposed rule. This information will also help
improve our understanding of the relationship between the process
fugitive emissions and the specific operations within the furnace
buildings. However, the measurements would not be tied to a specific
emissions limit.
    Second, the EPA is soliciting comment on requiring fugitive
fenceline filter based measurements of particulate matter and manganese
emissions at the facilities with no less than 3 monitoring systems at
the property boundaries to monitor trends in ambient concentrations at
these locations and to use this information (along with meteorological
data and modeling tools) to attempt to quantify trends in emissions
that are leaving and entering the facility property. The EPA seeks
comment on having the monitoring systems use common ambient filter
based sampling techniques as well as gathering data on meteorological
conditions simultaneously at each of the sampling sites. The EPA
recognizes that this monitoring would be capturing both ground level
and other fugitive emissions from the facilities as well as background
contributions from other sources, and that this type of monitoring has
limitations. Nevertheless, EPA is taking comment on the application and
appropriateness of this type of monitoring as part of the requirements
within this NESHAP to evaluate emissions leaving the facility property
and is taking comment on where to position the monitoring systems to
best evaluate the fugitive emissions.
    Third, the EPA is soliciting comment regarding the use of new
technologies to provide continuous or near continuous long term
approaches to monitoring emissions from industrial sources such the
Ferroalloys production facilities within this source category. To this
end we are seeking comment on the feasibility and practice associated
with the use of automated Opacity Monitoring with ASTM D7520-13, using
digital camera technology (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.
Specifically we are interested in comments regarding how many fixed
camera locations would be needed to provide sufficient sun-angle
viewing during daylight operating hours, and the frequency of the EXIF
2.1 JPG image analysis (how often the roof vent plume should be
evaluated).

    The EPA is moving toward advances in information and emissions
monitoring technology that is setting the stage for detection,
processing and communication capabilities that can revolutionize
environmental protection. The EPA calls this Next Generation
Compliance. One of the advances in information sharing is increased
transparency. Using transparency as a way to improve performance and
increase compliance, the EPA is seeking comments on whether affected
sources should be required to post Method 9 readings on their company
Web sites and/or State dashboards.
    Electronic reporting is another next generation tool that saves
time and money while improving results. The EPA is asking for comments
on whether the EPA should require affected sources to submit all
compliance documents such as notice of compliance status form,
deviations from the process fugitive ventilation plan and outdoor
fugitive dust plan, and electronic records of the bag leak detection
system output.
    We are not opening comment on aspects of the 2011 proposal (76 FR
72508) that have not changed and are not addressed in this supplemental
proposal. Comments received on the 2011 proposal along with comments
received on this supplemental proposal will be addressed in the EPA's
Response to Comment document and final rule preamble for the
Ferroalloys Production source category.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-*** (through one of the methods described
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility.
We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of
updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal
and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this supplemental
proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2448.01.
    We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements to the
ferroalloys production source category that were proposed in 2011. In
the 2011 proposal, we proposed paperwork requirements in the form of
increased frequency and number of pollutants tested for stack testing
as described in Sec.  63.1625(c) and tighter parameter monitoring
requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance as described in Sec.
63.1625(c)(4) and Sec.  63.1626. We are not proposing changes to these
requirements. However, in this supplemental proposal we are proposing
more frequent opacity monitoring requirements compared to the 2011
proposal and are removing the shop building process fugitives
monitoring requirements (to demonstrate negative pressure) that we
proposed in 2011.
    In addition, in the 2011 proposal, we included an estimate of the
burden associated with the affirmative defense in the ICR. However, as
explained above, in this supplemental proposal we are withdrawing our
proposal to include an affirmative defense and the burden estimate has
been revised accordingly.
    We estimate two regulated entities are currently subject to subpart
XXX and will be subject to this action. The annual monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over
the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) as a
result of the supplemental proposal revised amendments to subpart XXX
(Ferroalloys Production) is estimated to be $643,845 per year. This
includes 496 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $44,366 per
year and total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance costs,
of $599,479 per year. This estimate includes performance tests,
notifications, reporting and recordkeeping associated with the new
requirements for ferroalloys production operations. The total burden
for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 48 hours per year at
a total labor cost of $2,177 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number Docket
ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. Submit any comments related to the ICR
to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
notice for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after October 6,
2014, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by November 5, 2014. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has
the NAICS code 331110 (i.e., Electrometallurgical ferroalloy product
manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 1,000 employees
according to the SBA small business standards definitions.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Neither of
the companies affected by this rule is considered to be a small entity
per the definition provided in this section.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain a federal mandate under the provisions
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector. The action would not result in expenditures of $100
million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in aggregate,
or the private sector in any 1 year. This final action imposes no
enforceable duties on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments as it contains no
requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose
obligations upon them.

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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by state governments and, because no
new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this action will
supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically
solicited comment on this action from tribal officials in the 2011
proposal and none were received during the comment period for that
proposal.

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

    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,
shows that, prior to the implementation of the provisions included in
the proposal and this supplemental proposal, on a nationwide basis,
there are approximately 31,000 people exposed to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million and approximately 1,500 people exposed to a
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 due to emissions from the source
category. The percentages for all demographic groups, 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 up to 31,000 to about 6,600), providing significant benefit to
all the demographic groups in the at-risk population.
    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 have a disproportionate impact on
children.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This
action will not create any new requirements that affect the energy
supply, distribution or use sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This supplemental proposal involves technical standards. The EPA
has decided to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 10, 26A, 29,
30B, 316, CARB 429, SW-846 Method 3052, SW-846 Method 7471b and EPA
water Method 1631E of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. No applicable VCS
were identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 316, 1631E and CARB 429, SW-
846 Method 3052 and SW-846 Method 7471b.
    Two VCS were identified acceptable alternatives to the EPA test
methods for the purposes of this rule. The VCS standard ANSI/ASME PTC
19-10-1981--Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' is an acceptable
alternative to Method 3B. The VCS ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard Test Method
for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor

Ambient Atmosphere'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 9 under
specified conditions. The Agency identified 18 VCS as being potentially
applicable to these methods cited in this rule. However, the EPA
determined that the 18 candidate VCS would not be practical due to lack
of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important
technical and policy considerations. The 18 VCS and other information
and conclusions, including the search and review results, are in the
docket for this rule.
    Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) and 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 the proposed rule.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by
emissions from this source category are unacceptable. There are up to
31,000 people nationwide 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
``at-risk'' population is similar to the national distribution for all
demographic groups. The proposed supplemental requirements along with
other proposed requirements (76 FR 72508) will reduce the number of
people in this at-risk group, from up to 31,000, to about 6,600 people.
Based on this analysis, the EPA has determined that the proposed
supplemental 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 4, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(84);
0
b. Revising paragraph (i)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (p)(6) and adding paragraphs (p)(21) and (p)(22);
and
0
d. By adding paragraph (s).

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

    (b) * * *
    (84) ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,'' IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b) and 63.1657(b).
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (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. 772(e), 63.772(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), 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), 63.11945, table 5 to subpart
DDDDD of this part, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ of this part, Table 5 of
subpart UUUUU of this part and table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part.
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (6) SW-846-7471B, Mercury in Solid Or Semisolid Waste (Manual Cold-
Vapor Technique), Revision 2, February 2007, in EPA Publication No. SW-
846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b), table 6 to
subpart DDDDD of this part and table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.
* * * * *
    (21) SW-846-Method 3052, Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion Of
Siliceous and Organically Based Matrices, Revision 0, December 1996, in
EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1625(b).
    (22) Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge
and Trap and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry, August 2002
located at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_mercury_1631.pdf, IBR approved for
Sec.  63.1625(b).
* * * * *
    (s) The following material is available from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95814,
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/).
    (1) Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
(PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources, Adopted September 1989,
Amended July 1997, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b).
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart XXX--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.1620 is added to read as follows:

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 or silicomanganese
production facility:
    (1) Open, semi-sealed, or sealed submerged 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 sources listed in paragraph
(b) of this section for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after [DATE OF FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (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 parts 70
or 71, as applicable.

    (f) Emission standards in this subpart apply at all times.
0
4. Section 63.1621 is added to read as follows:

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 [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (b) Affected sources in existence prior to [DATE OF FINAL RULE
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must be in compliance with the
provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 by November
21, 2001 and until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
As of [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the provisions
of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 cease to apply to affected
sources in existence prior to [DATE OF FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER]. The provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661
remain enforceable at a source for its activities prior to [DATE 2
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with the requirements of this
subpart by [DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], or upon startup of
operations, whichever is later.
0
5. Section 63.1622 is added to read as follows:

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 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.
    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 and ductwork 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 operations.
    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.
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.
0
6. Section 63.1623 is added to read as follows:

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 (including charging, melting and tapping
operations and emissions from any vent stacks) 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 (a)(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 17 [micro]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 170
[micro]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 4.0
[micro]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
[micro]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 1,400
[micro]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing 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 880 [micro]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or
reconstructed 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 120 [micro]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing
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 72 [micro]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or
reconstructed 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 [micro]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 [micro]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 [micro]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 the 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) of
this section.
    (2) The determination of 95-percent overall capture must be
demonstrated as required by Sec.  63.1624(a).
    (3) You must not cause the emissions exiting from a shop building,
to exceed an average of 8 percent opacity.
    (i) The opacity readings from the shop building must be taken every
15 seconds during the observed furnace process cycle and the 15 second
readings averaged to determine if the 8 percent opacity requirement has
been met.
    (ii) If the average opacity reading from the shop building is
greater than 8 percent opacity during an observed furnace process
cycle, an additional two more furnace process cycles must be observed
within 7 days and the average opacity during the entire observation
periods must be less than 8 percent opacity.
    (iii) At no time during operation may the average of any two
consecutive 6-minute blocks 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.
0
7. Section 63.1624 is added to read as follows:

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 design and operations to achieve at
least 95 percent overall capture of process fugitive emissions. The
plan will be deemed to achieve this level of 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). 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 address variables that affect
capture efficiency such as operations that create cross-drafts and
describe protocol or design characteristics to minimize such events.
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 of this chapter.
    (3) You must update the information required in paragraph (a)(1)
and (a)(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 of this chapter.
    (3) You are permitted to 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.
0
8. Section 63.1625 is added to read as follows:

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 of subpart A.
    (2) Each performance test in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 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 as long as 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, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' may be used
(incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 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 (e.g., 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 40 CFR part 63 to determine
outlet stack or inlet formaldehyde.
    (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 cubic meter.
    (9) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
opacity. ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' may be used
(incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the following
conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-09, 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 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 D7520-09.
    (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 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 D7520-09 and
these requirements is on the

facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
    (10) Methods to determine the mercury content of manganese ore
including a total metals digestion technique, SW-846 Method 3052 and a
mercury specific analysis method, SW-846 Method 7471b (Cold Vapor AA)
or Water Method 1631E (Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence).
    (11) California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 429,
Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions from
Stationary Sources to determine total PAH emissions. The method is
available from California Resources Board, 1102 Q Street, Sacramento,
California 95814, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/M_429.pdf).
    (12) The owner or operator may use alternative measurement methods
approved by the Administrator following the procedures described in
Sec.  63.7(f) of subpart A.
    (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 five 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 ongoing performance tests every five years
for air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec.
63.1623(a)(3) through (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 (c)(4)(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 would 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 the conduct of opacity or visible emission observations.
    (ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to EPA
Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4, for a period that includes at
least one complete furnace process cycle for each furnace.
    (iii) You must conduct the opacity observations at least once per
week for each operating furnace.
    (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(h) 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 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 analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating
conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection
systems in Sec.  60.57c(h).
0
9. Section 63.1626 is added to read as follows:

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, 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 (c)(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 (d)(4) of this section, unless a system
meeting the requirements of paragraph (q) 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 (d)(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 (d)(3)(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)
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 (d)(4)(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)(i)(A) through (d)(4)(i)(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 (g)(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 section 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 (j)(1) through
(j)(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 (c)(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 Appendix A 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 Appendix A
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 (j)(7) of this section.
    (1) The continuous parameter monitoring system 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 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 (q)(1) through (q)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS
according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13 and Performance
Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B of this chapter.
    (2) During each PM correlation testing run of the CEMS required by
Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B of this
chapter, 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 of this chapter.
    (3) Perform quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration
drift tests in accordance with Procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix
F of this chapter. Relative Response Audits must be performed annually
and Response Correlation Audits must be performed every three 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 in the as
specified in Sec.  63.1628(e).
0
10. Section 63.1627 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1627  What notification requirements must I meet?

    (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of
Sec.  63.9 of subpart A, General Provisions. Electronic notifications
are encouraged when possible.
    (b)(1) You must submit the process fugitives 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 along with a notification that you
are seeking review and approval of these plans and procedures. You must
submit this notification no later than [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. For sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after [DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 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 [DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], you must submit this
notification no later than [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
    (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 for review and approval of the initial submittal
and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
0
11. Section 63.1628 is added to read as follows:

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 two 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 five years, records of the
information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13) 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(a) as part of the practices described in the
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.
63.1626(c).
    (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 below the established minimum established 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 (g)(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(j) and (k) 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