[Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21559-21577]
[DOCID:fr22ap08-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Neuffer, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by these proposed
amendments include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. When would a public hearing occur?

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

II. Background Information on Subpart OOO

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

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

B. What are the current NMPP NSPS?

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

III. Summary of These Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO

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

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

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

IV. Rationale for These Proposed Amendments to Subpart OOO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

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

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

VI. Clarifications on Subpart OOO

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

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

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

A. What are the impacts for NMPP?

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

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

B. What are the secondary impacts?

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

C. What are the economic impacts?

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

VIII. Proposed Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability

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

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

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

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

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble,
the estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year
after promulgation are $630 thousand. Thus, this proposed action is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has
determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed action contains no requirements that apply
to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would not
result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year
or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, this proposed
action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed action does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of
specified industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

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

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart OOO--[Amended]

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

Tables to Subpart OOO of Part 60

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

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

Sec.  60.670  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), and (d)
of this section, the provisions of this subpart are applicable to the
following affected facilities in fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral
processing plants: each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation,
bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin,
enclosed truck or railcar loading station. Also, crushers and grinding
mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of nonmetallic
minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected
facilities up to, but not including, the first storage silo or bin are
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (2) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to the following
operations: All facilities located in underground mines; plants without
crushers or grinding mills; and wet material processing operations (as
defined in Sec.  60.671).
    (b) An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of
subpart F or I of this part or that follows in the plant process any
facility subject to the provisions of subparts F or I of this part is
not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (c) Facilities at the following plants are not subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
    (1) Fixed sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with
capacities, as defined in Sec.  60.671, of 23 megagrams per hour (25
tons per hour) or less;
    (2) Portable sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with
capacities, as defined in Sec.  60.671, of 136 megagrams per hour (150
tons per hour) or less; and
    (3) Common clay plants and pumice plants with capacities, as
defined in Sec.  60.671, of 9 megagrams per hour (10 tons per hour) or
less.
    (d)(1) When an existing facility is replaced by a piece of
equipment of equal or smaller size, as defined in Sec.  60.671, having
the same function as the existing facility, and there is no increase in
the amount of emissions, the new facility is exempt from the provisions
of Sec. Sec.  60.672, 60.674, and 60.675 except as provided for in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (2) An owner or operator complying with paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall submit the information required in Sec.  60.676(a).
    (3) An owner or operator replacing all existing facilities in a
production line

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

Sec.  60.671  Definitions.

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

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

Sec.  60.672  Standard for particulate matter (PM).

    (a) You must meet the stack emission limits and compliance
requirements in Table 2 of this subpart within 60 days after achieving
the maximum production rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup as required
under Sec.  60.8. The requirements in Table 2 apply for affected
facilities with capture systems.
    (b) You must meet the fugitive emission limits and compliance
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart within 60 days after achieving
the maximum production rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup as required
under Sec.  60.11. The requirements in Table 3 apply for fugitive
emissions from affected facilities without capture systems.
    (c) [RESERVED]
    (d) Truck dumping of nonmetallic minerals into any screening
operation, feed hopper, or crusher is exempt from the requirements of
this section.
    (e) If any transfer point on a conveyor belt or any other affected
facility is enclosed in a building, then each enclosed affected
facility must comply with the emission limits in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section, or the building enclosing the affected facility or
facilities must comply with the following emission limits:
    (1) Fugitive emissions from the building openings (except for vents
as defined in Sec.  60.671) must not exceed 7 percent opacity; and
    (2) Vents (as defined in Sec.  60.671) in the building must meet
the applicable stack emission limits and compliance requirements in
Table 2 of this subpart.
    (f) Any baghouse that controls emissions from only an individual,
enclosed storage bin is exempt from the applicable stack PM
concentration limit (and associated performance testing) in Table 2 of
this subpart but must meet the applicable stack opacity limit and
compliance requirements in Table 2 of this subpart. Owners or operators
of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions must meet both
the applicable PM concentration and opacity limits (and associated
compliance requirements) in Table 2 of this subpart.

Sec.  60.673  Reconstruction.

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

Sec.  60.674  Monitoring of operations.

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

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

Sec.  60.675  Test methods and procedures.

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

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

Where:

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

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

Sec.  60.676  Reporting and recordkeeping.

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

    (ii) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons of replacement storage
bins.
    (b)(1) Affected facilities (as defined in Sec. Sec.  60.670 and
60.671) installed after April 22, 2008 must record each periodic
inspection required under Sec.  60.674(b) or (c), including dates and
any corrective actions taken, in a logbook (in written or electronic
format). You must keep the logbook onsite and make the logbook
available to the Administrator upon request.
    (2) For each bag leak detection system installed and operated
according to Sec.  60.674(d), you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms,
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken,
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether
the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
    (c) During the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, and
daily thereafter, the owner or operator shall record the measurements
of both the change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber
and the scrubbing liquid flow rate.
    (d) After the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, the owner
or operator shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator of
occurrences when the measurements of the scrubber pressure loss and
liquid flow rate decrease by more than 30 percent from the average
determined during the most recent performance test.
    (e) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall
be postmarked within 30 days following end of the second and fourth
calendar quarters.
    (f) The owner or operator of any affected facility shall submit
written reports of the results of all performance tests conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in Sec.  60.672 of
this subpart, including reports of opacity observations made using
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) to demonstrate compliance with
Sec.  60.672(b), (e) and (f).
    (g) The owner or operator of any wet material processing operation
that processes saturated and subsequently processes unsaturated
materials, shall submit a report of this change within 30 days
following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or
belt conveyor is then subject to the applicable opacity limit in Sec.
60.672(b) and the emission test requirements of Sec.  60.11.
    (h) The subpart A requirement under Sec.  60.7(a)(1) for
notification of the date construction or reconstruction commenced is
waived for affected facilities under this subpart.
    (i) A notification of the actual date of initial startup of each
affected facility shall be submitted to the Administrator.
    (1) For a combination of affected facilities in a production line
that begin actual initial startup on the same day, a single
notification of startup may be submitted by the owner or operator to
the Administrator. The notification shall be postmarked within 15 days
after such date and shall include a description of each affected
facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number of the equipment,
if available.
    (2) For portable aggregate processing plants, the notification of