In the 2011 proposal, we proposed to eliminate two provisions that exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also included provisions for affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards caused by malfunctions. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a "sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *" (40 CFR 63.2). As explained in the 2011 proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level "achieved" by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation "achieved" by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level "achieved" by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, the phrase "average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of" sources "says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated." Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a "normal or usual manner" and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting section 112 standards.
	Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not "reasonably" foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'") See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (" In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation."). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99 percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
  	In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, "sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable" and was not instead "caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation." 40 CFR § 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
	Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
	As noted above, the 2011 proposal included an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions. EPA included the affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal as it had in several prior rules in an effort to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal and in several prior rules to provide a more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more formalized approach to consideration of "upsets beyond the control of the permit holder."). Under the EPA's regulatory affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be assessed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's Section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in Section 112 rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court found: "As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are `appropriate.'" See NRDC at *21 ("[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are `appropriate' in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA."). In light of NRDC, the EPA is withdrawing its proposal to include a regulatory affirmative defense provision in this rulemaking and in this proposal has eliminated sections 63.1627 and 63.1662 (the affirmative defense provisions in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72508)). As explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. NRDC at *24. (arguments that violation were caused by unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in future civil cases when the issue arises). The same logic applies to EPA administrative enforcement actions.
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
      The proposed changes to the 2011 proposal that are set out in this supplementary proposal will not change the compliance dates proposed. We continue to propose that facilities must comply with the changes set out in this supplementary proposal (which are being proposed under CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) for all affected sources), no later than 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. We find that 2 years are necessary to complete the installation of the enhanced local capture system and other controls. In the period between the effective date of this rule and the compliance date, existing sources would continue to comply with the existing requirements specified in §§63.1650 through 63.1661, which will protect the health of persons from imminent endangerment.
V. Summary of the Revised Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?

      We maintain, as at the 2011 proposal, that the two manganese ferroalloys production facilities currently operating in the United States will be affected by these proposed amendments. We do not know of any new facilities that are expected to be constructed in the foreseeable future. However, there is one other facility that has a permit to produce ferromanganese or silicomanganese in an electric arc furnace, but it is not doing so at present. It is possible, however, that this facility could resume production or another non-manganese ferroalloy producer could decide to commence production of ferromanganese or silicomanganese. Given this uncertainty, our impact analysis is focused on the two existing sources that are currently operating.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

      The EPA revised the estimated emissions reductions that are expected to result from the proposed amendments to the 1999 NESHAP based on the proposed changes in this supplemental proposal. A detailed documentation of the analysis can be found in the Cost Impacts document, which is available in the docket.
      As noted in the 2011 proposal, emissions of metal HAP from ferroalloys production sources have declined in recent years, primarily as the result of state actions and also due to the industry's own initiative. The proposed amendments in this supplemental proposal would cut HAP emissions (primarily particulate metal HAP such as manganese, arsenic and nickel) by about 60 percent from their current levels. Under the revised proposed emissions standards for process fugitives emissions from the furnace building, we estimate that the HAP emissions reductions would be 77 tpy, including significant reductions of manganese.
      As noted in the 2011 proposal, based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that both facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emissions limits for HCl without additional controls. Based on the analyses presented today, we also anticipate that both facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emission limits for mercury and PAH without additional controls.
C. What are the cost impacts?

      Under the revised proposed amendments, ferroalloys production facilities are expected to incur costs for the design of a local ventilation system, resulting in a site-specific local ventilation plan and installation of custom hoods and ventilation equipment and additional control devices to manage the air flows generated by the enhanced capture systems. There would also be capital costs associated with installing new or improved continuous monitoring systems, including installation of BLDS on the furnace baghouses that are not currently equipped with these systems.
      The revised capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the projected number and types of upgrades required. The specific enhancements for each facility were selected for cost estimation based on estimates directly provided by the facilities based on their engineering analyses and discussions with the EPA. The Cost Impacts document includes a complete description of the revised cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is available in the docket.
      Cost elements vary by plant and furnace and include the following elements:
         * Curtains or doors surrounding furnace tops to contain fugitive emissions;
         * Improvements to hoods collecting tapping emissions;
         * Upgraded fans to improve the airflow of fabric filters controlling fugitive emissions;
         * Addition of "secondary capture" or additional hoods to capture emissions from tapping platforms or crucibles;
         * Addition of fugitives capture for casting operations;
         * Improvement of existing control devices or addition of fabric filters; and
         * Addition of rooftop ventilation, in which fugitive emissions escaping local control are collected in the roof canopy over process areas through addition of partitions and hoods, then directed through roof vents and ducts to control devices.
      For purposes of the supplemental proposal analysis, we assumed that enhanced fugitive capture and control systems and roofline ventilation will be installed for all operational furnaces at both facilities and for MOR operations at Eramet Marietta. The specific elements of the capture and control systems selected for each facility are based on information supplied by the facilities incorporating their best estimates of the improvements to fugitive emission capture and control they would implement to achieve the standards included in the supplemental proposal. We estimate the total capital costs of installing the required ductwork, fans and control devices under the enhanced capture option to be $37.6 million and the total annualized cost to be $7.1 million (2012 dollars) for the two plants. We estimate that this option would reduce metal HAP emissions by 75 tons, resulting in a cost per ton of metal HAP removed to be $94,700 per ton ($47 per pound). The total HAP reduction for the enhanced capture option is estimated to be 77 tons per year at a cost per ton of $91,900 per ton ($46 per pound). We also estimate that this option would achieve PM emission reductions of 229 tons per year, resulting in cost per ton of PM removed of $30,900 per ton and achieve PM2.5 emission reductions of 48 tons per year, resulting in a cost per ton of PM2.5 removal of $147,000 per ton.

D. What are the economic impacts?

      As a result of the requirements in this supplemental proposal, we estimate that the total capital cost for the Eramet facility will be about $25 million and the total annualized costs will be about $5.4 million (in 2012 dollars). For impacts to Felman Production LLC, this facility is estimated to incur a total capital cost of $12.4 million and a total annualized costs of just under $1.7 million (in 2012 dollars). In total, these costs could lead to an increase in annualized cost of as much as 1.8 percent of sales, which serves as an estimate for the increase in product prices, and a decrease in output of as much as 9.5 percent. For more information regarding economic impacts, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis report that is included in the public docket for this supplemental proposal.
E. What are the benefits?
      The estimated reductions in HAP emissions (i.e., about 77 tpy) that would be achieved by this proposal would provide significant benefits to public health. For example, there would be a significant reduction in emissions of air toxics (especially Mn, Ni, Cd and PAHs). In addition to the HAP reductions, we also estimate that this supplemental proposal would achieve about 48 tons of reductions in PM2.5 emissions as a co-benefit of the HAP reductions annually.
      This rulemaking is not an "economically significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rulemaking or a benefits analysis. While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce health effects associated with exposure to air pollution associated with these emissions, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated with these emission reductions. When determining if the benefits of an action exceed its costs, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct the Agency to consider qualitative benefits that are difficult to quantity but nevertheless essential to consider.
      Directly emitted particles are precursors to secondary formation of fine particles (PM2.5). Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce ambient concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2009). When adequate data and resources are available and an RIA is required, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2012). These health effects include premature mortality for adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted activity days and respiratory symptoms. The scientific literature also suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular and respiratory effects (U.S. EPA, 2009), but the EPA has not quantified certain outcomes these impacts in its benefits analyses. PM2.5 also increases light extinction, which is an important aspect of visibility.
      The rulemaking is also anticipated to reduce emissions of other HAP, including metal HAP (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (both total and Cr[+6]), lead compounds, manganese and nickel) and PAHs. Some of these HAP are carcinogenic (e.g., arsenic, PAHs) and some have effects other than cancer (e.g., kidney disease from cadmium, respiratory and immunological effects from nickel).  While we cannot quantitatively estimate the benefits achieved by reducing emissions of these HAP, we would expect benefits by reducing exposures to these HAP. More information about the health effects of these HAP can be found on the IRIS, ATSDR, and California EPA webpages.

VI. Request for Comments
      We solicit comments on the revised risk assessment and technology review and proposed changes to the previously proposed amendments. We seek comments on the additional data received in August 2014 (as described in Section II.D above) and the impacts of those new data on the analyses and results presented in this notice. We seek comments on the sufficiency of the proposed controls for process fugitive emissions, the design of such systems and how best to monitor them to ensure the systems achieve the estimated efficiency. We also seek comments on other aspects of this supplemental proposal, including, but not limited to, the proposed opacity standards.
      The EPA is also soliciting comment with regard to expanding the monitoring requirements in this NESHAP for fugitive particulate matter and manganese emissions being released at the roof vents of furnace buildings using one or more of three different options. For the following three options the EPA is additionally seeking comment on the frequency of monitoring and the cost associated with installation, operation, analysis and ongoing reporting. Additional cost information of these three monitoring options is included in the Cost Impacts document, which is available in the docket.
      First, the EPA is soliciting comment on the potential to require the facilities to take periodic measurements of fugitive particulate matter and manganese emissions from the roof vents using portable filter based measurement technologies. The EPA solicits comment on requiring no less than 3 filter based monitoring systems with associated anemometers with the goal of quantifying trends in the process fugitive emissions that are leaving the furnace buildings. We also solicit comment on the appropriate sampling duration and frequency of such measurements (e.g., 8-hour samples gathered at each monitor several times per week or month). This monitoring could provide useful information regarding the remaining fugitive emissions that will be escaping the buildings after the facilities install and operate the improved capture and controls systems that we expect will be installed to comply with this proposed rule. This information will also help improve our understanding of the relationship between the process fugitive emissions and the specific operations within the furnace buildings. However, the measurements would not be tied to a specific emissions limit.
      Second, the EPA is soliciting comment on requiring fugitive fenceline filter based measurements of particulate matter and manganese emissions at the facilities with no less than 3 monitoring systems at the property boundaries to monitor trends in ambient concentrations at these locations and to use this information (along with meteorological data and modeling tools) to attempt to quantify trends in emissions that are leaving and entering the facility property. The EPA seeks comment on having the monitoring systems use common ambient filter based sampling techniques as well as gathering data on meteorological conditions simultaneously at each of the sampling sites. The EPA recognizes that this monitoring would be capturing both ground level and other fugitive emissions from the facilities as well as background contributions from other sources, and that this type of monitoring has limitations. Nevertheless, EPA is taking comment on the application and appropriateness of this type of monitoring as part of the requirements within this NESHAP to evaluate emissions leaving the facility property and is taking comment on where to position the monitoring systems to best evaluate the fugitive emissions.
      Third, the EPA is soliciting comment regarding the use of new technologies to provide continuous or near continuous long term approaches to monitoring emissions from industrial sources such the Ferroalloys production facilities within this source category. To this end we are seeking comment on the feasibility and practice associated with the use of automated Opacity Monitoring with ASTM D7520-13, using digital camera technology (DCOT) at fixed points to interpret visible emissions from roof vents associated with the processes at each facility, and how this technology could potentially be included as part of the requirements in the NESHAP for ferroalloys production sources. Specifically we are interested in comments regarding how many fixed camera locations would be needed to provide sufficient sun-angle viewing during daylight operating hours, and the frequency of the EXIF 2.1 JPG image analysis (how often the roof vent plume should be evaluated).
      The EPA is moving toward advances in information and emissions monitoring technology that is setting the stage for detection, processing and communication capabilities that can revolutionize environmental protection. The EPA calls this Next Generation Compliance. One of the advances in information sharing is increased transparency. Using transparency as a way to improve performance and increase compliance, the EPA is seeking comments on whether affected sources should be required to post Method 9 readings on their company web sites and/or State dashboards.
      Electronic reporting is another next generation tool that saves time and money while improving results. The EPA is asking for comments on whether the EPA should require affected sources to submit all compliance documents such as notice of compliance status form, deviations from the process fugitive ventilation plan and outdoor fugitive dust plan, and electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
      We are not opening comment on aspects of the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72508) that have not changed and are not addressed in this supplemental proposal. Comments received on the 2011 proposal along with comments received on this supplemental proposal will be addressed in the EPA's Response to Comment document and final rule preamble for the Ferroalloys Production source category.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
      The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
      If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern and provide any "improved" data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR page, complete the following steps:
      1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information.
      2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number and revision comments).
      3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
      4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft(R) Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-*** (through one of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
      5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft(R) Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft(R) Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
      Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
      The information collection requirements in this supplemental proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2448.01.
      We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements to the ferroalloys production source category that were proposed in 2011. In the 2011 proposal, we proposed paperwork requirements in the form of increased frequency and number of pollutants tested for stack testing as described in §63.1625(c) and tighter parameter monitoring requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance as described in §63.1625(c)(4) and §63.1626. We are not proposing changes to these requirements. However, in this supplemental proposal we are proposing more frequent opacity monitoring requirements compared to the 2011 proposal and are removing the shop building process fugitives monitoring requirements (to demonstrate negative pressure) that we proposed in 2011.
      In addition, in the 2011 proposal, we included an estimate of the burden associated with the affirmative defense in the ICR. However, as explained above, in this supplemental proposal we are withdrawing our proposal to include an affirmative defense and the burden estimate has been revised accordingly.
      We estimate two regulated entities are currently subject to subpart XXX and will be subject to this action. The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) as a result of the supplemental proposal revised amendments to subpart XXX (Ferroalloys Production) is estimated to be $643,845 per year. This includes 496 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $44,366 per year and total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance costs, of $599,479 per year. This estimate includes performance tests, notifications, reporting and recordkeeping associated with the new requirements for ferroalloys production operations. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 48 hours per year at a total labor cost of $2,177 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
      An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register.], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
      The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
      For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has the NAICS code 331110 (i.e., Electrometallurgical ferroalloy product manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 1,000 employees according to the SBA small business standards definitions.
      After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Neither of the companies affected by this rule is considered to be a small entity per the definition provided in this section.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
      This action does not contain a federal mandate under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. The action would not result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. This final action imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
      This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments as it contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
      This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned or operated by state governments and, because no new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this action will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicited comment on this action from tribal officials in the 2011 proposal and none were received during the comment period for that proposal.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
      This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because the Agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The report, Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Ferroalloys Facilities, shows that, prior to the implementation of the provisions included in the proposal and this supplemental proposal, on a nationwide basis, there are approximately 31,000 people exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and approximately 1,500 people exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 due to emissions from the source category. The percentages for all demographic groups, including children 18 years and younger, are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide percentages. Further, implementation of the provisions included in this action is expected to significantly reduce the number of at-risk people due to HAP emissions from these sources (from up to 31,000 to about 6,600), providing significant benefit to all the demographic groups in the at-risk population.
      This rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for everyone, including children. This action establishes emissions limits at the levels based on MACT, as required by the CAA. Based on our analysis, we believe that this rule does not have a disproportionate impact on children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a "significant energy action" as defined under Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not create any new requirements that affect the energy supply, distribution or use sectors.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
      Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
      This supplemental proposal involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 10, 26A, 29, 30B, 316, CARB 429, SW-846 Method 3052, SW-846 Method 7471b and EPA water Method 1631E of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 316, 1631E and CARB 429, SW-846 Method 3052 and SW-846 Method 7471b.
      Two VCS were identified acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. The VCS standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, "Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses" is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B. The VCS ASTM D7520-09, "Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere" is an acceptable alternative to Method 9 under specified conditions. The Agency identified 18 VCS as being potentially applicable to these methods cited in this rule. However, the EPA determined that the 18 candidate VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy considerations. The 18 VCS and other information and conclusions, including the search and review results, are in the docket for this rule.
      Under §§63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the proposed rule.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
      Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
      The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by emissions from this source category are unacceptable. There are up to 31,000 people nationwide that are currently subject to health risks which may not be considered negligible (i.e., cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million or chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1) due to emissions from this source category. The demographic makeup of this "at-risk" population is similar to the national distribution for all demographic groups. The proposed supplemental requirements along with other proposed requirements (76 FR 72508) will reduce the number of people in this at-risk group, from up to 31,000, to about 6,600 people. Based on this analysis, the EPA has determined that the proposed supplemental requirements will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production
                                Page 222 of 283

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
      Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

________________________.
Dated:

________________________
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63 -- [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
      Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
      a. Adding paragraph (b)(84);
      b. Revising paragraph (i)(1);
      c. Revising paragraph (p)(6) and adding paragraphs (p)(21) and (p)(22); and
      d. By adding paragraph (s).
§63.14 Incorporations by reference.
      (b) * * *
      (84) ASTM D7520-09, "Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere," IBR approved for §§63.1625(b) and 63.1657(b).
* * * * *
      (i) * * *
      (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10 - 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981 IBR approved for §§63.309(k), 63. 772(e), 63.772(h), 63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ of this part, Table 5 of subpart UUUUU of this part and table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part.
* * *
      (p) * * *
      (6) SW - 846 - 7471B, Mercury in Solid Or Semisolid Waste (Manual Cold-Vapor Technique), Revision 2, February 2007, in EPA Publication No. SW - 846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for §63.1625(b), table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part and table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.
* * * * *
      (21) SW-846-Method 3052, Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion Of Siliceous and Organically Based Matrices, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA Publication No. SW - 846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for §63.1625(b).
      (22) Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry, August 2002 located at:  http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_mercury_1631.pdf, IBR approved for §63.1625(b).
* * * * *
      (s) The following material is available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95814, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/).
      (1) Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources, Adopted September 1989, Amended July 1997, IBR approved for §63.1625(b).
      (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart XXX -- [AMENDED]
3. Section 63.1620 is added to read as follows:
§63.1620 Am I subject to this subpart?
      (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new or existing ferromanganese and/or silicomanganese production facility that is a major source or is co-located at a major source of hazardous air pollutant emissions.
      (b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate any of the following equipment as part of a ferromanganese or silicomanganese production facility:
      (1) Open, semi-sealed, or sealed submerged arc furnace,
      (2) Casting operations,
      (3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process,
      (4) Crushing and screening operations,
      (5) Outdoor fugitive dust sources.
      (c) A new affected source is any of the sources listed in paragraph (b) of this section for which construction or reconstruction commenced after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
      (d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A of this part that apply to owners and operators of ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facilities subject to this subpart.
      (e) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable.
      (f) Emission standards in this subpart apply at all times.
4. Section 63.1621 is added to read as follows:
§63.1621 What are my compliance dates?
      (a) Existing affected sources must be in compliance with the provisions specified in §§63.1620 through 63.1629 no later than [INSERT DATE OF 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
      (b) Affected sources in existence prior to [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must be in compliance with the provisions specified in §§63.1650 through 63.1661 by November 21, 2001 and until [INSERT DATE OF 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS]. As of [INSERT DATE OF 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS], the provisions of §§63.1650 through 63.1661 cease to apply to affected sources in existence prior to [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The provisions of §§63.1650 through 63.1661 remain enforceable at a source for its activities prior to [INSERT DATE OF 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS].
      (c) If you own or operate a new affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with the requirements of this subpart by [INSERT DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS], or upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
5. Section 63.1622 is added to read as follows:
§63.1622 What definitions apply to this subpart?
      Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (Act), in subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:

      Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
      Capture system means the collection of components used to capture the gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then convey the captured gas stream to a control device or to the atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the following components as applicable to a given capture system design: duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, fans and roofline ventilation systems.
      Casting means the period of time from when molten ferroalloy is removed from the tapping station until pouring into casting molds or beds is completed. This includes the following operations: pouring alloy from one ladle to another, slag separation, slag removal and ladle transfer by crane, truck, or other conveyance.
      Crushing and screening equipment means the crushers, grinders, mills, screens and conveying systems used to crush, size and prepare for packing manganese-containing materials, including raw materials, intermediate products and final products.
      Electric arc furnace means any furnace where electrical energy is converted to heat energy by transmission of current between electrodes partially submerged in the furnace charge.
      Furnace process cycle means the period in which the furnace is tapped to the time in which the furnace is tapped again and includes periods of charging, smelting, tapping, casting and ladle raking. For multiple furnaces operating within a single shop building, furnace process cycle means a period sufficient to capture a full cycle of charging, smelting, tapping, casting and ladle raking for each furnace within the shop building.
      Ladle treatment means a post-tapping process including metal and alloy additions where chemistry adjustments are made in the ladle after furnace smelting to achieve a specified product.
      Local ventilation means hoods and ductwork designed to capture process fugitive emissions close to the area where the emissions are generated (e.g., tap hoods).
      Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process means the reduction of the carbon content of ferromanganese through the use of oxygen.
      Outdoor fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which hazardous air pollutant-bearing particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to wind or mechanical inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources include plant roadways, yard areas and outdoor material storage and transfer operations.
      Plant roadway means any area at a ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility that is subject to plant mobile equipment, such as forklifts, front end loaders, or trucks, carrying manganese-bearing materials. Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by plant mobile equipment.
      Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air pollutant emissions that is associated with a ferromanganese or silicomanganese production facility and is not a fugitive dust source. Process fugitive sources include emissions that escape capture from the electric arc furnace, tapping operations, casting operations, ladle treatment, MOR or crushing and screening equipment.
      Roofline ventilation system means an exhaust system designed to evacuate process fugitive emissions that collect in the roofline area to a control device.
      Shop building means the building which houses one or more electric arc furnaces or other processes that generate process fugitive emissions.
      Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source for any purpose.
      Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source for any purpose.
      Tapping emissions means the gases and emissions associated with removal of product from the electric arc furnace under normal operating conditions, such as removal of metal under normal pressure and movement by gravity down the spout into the ladle and filling the ladle.
      Tapping period means the time from when a tap hole is opened until the time a tap hole is closed.
6. Section 63.1623 is added to read as follows:
§63.1623 What are the emissions standards for new, reconstructed and existing facilities?
      (a) Electric arc furnaces. You must install, operate and maintain an effective capture system that collects the emissions from each electric arc furnace operation (including charging, melting and tapping operations and emissions from any vent stacks) and conveys the collected emissions to a control device for the removal of the pollutants specified in the emissions standards specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
      (1) Particulate matter emissions.
      (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing particulate matter in excess of 4.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace.
      (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing particulate matter in excess of 25 mg/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace.
      (2) Mercury emissions.
      (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 17 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
      (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 170 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
      (iii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 4.0 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
      (iv) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 12 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
      (3) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions.
      (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of 1,400 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
      (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of 880 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
      (iii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of 120 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
      (iv) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of 72 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
      (4) Hydrochloric acid emissions.
      (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing hydrochloric acid emissions in excess of 180 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace.
      (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing hydrochloric acid emissions in excess of 1,100 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace.
      (5) Formaldehyde emissions. You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing formaldehyde emissions in excess of 201 ug/dscm into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed or existing electric arc furnace.
      (b) Process fugitive emissions.
      (1) You must install, operate and maintain a capture system that is designed to collect 95 percent or more of the emissions from the process fugitive emissions sources and convey the collected emissions to a control device that is demonstrated to meet the applicable emission limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
      (2) The determination of 95-percent overall capture must be demonstrated as required by §63.1624(a).
      (3) You must not cause the emissions exiting from a shop building, to exceed an average of 8 percent opacity.
      (i) The opacity readings from the shop building must be taken every 15 seconds during the observed furnace process cycle and the 15 second readings averaged to determine if the 8 percent opacity requirement has been met.
      (ii) If the average opacity reading from the shop building is greater than 8 percent opacity during an observed furnace process cycle, an additional two more furnace process cycles must be observed within 7 days and the average opacity during the entire observation periods must be less than 8 percent opacity.
      (iii) At no time during operation may the average of any two consecutive 6-minute blocks be greater than 20 percent opacity.
      (c) Local ventilation emissions. If you operate local ventilation to capture tapping, casting, or ladle treatment emissions and direct them to a control device other than one associated with the electric arc furnace, you must not discharge into the atmosphere any captured emissions containing particulate matter in excess of 4.0 mg/dscm.
      (d) MOR process. You must not discharge into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed or existing MOR process exhaust gases containing particulate matter in excess of 3.9 mg/dscm.
      (e) Crushing and screening equipment. You must not discharge into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed, or existing piece of equipment associated with crushing and screening exhaust gases containing particulate matter in excess of 13 mg/dscm.
      (f) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records and inspection of the source.
7. Section 63.1624 is added to read as follows:
§63.1624 What are the operational and work practice standards for new, reconstructed and existing facilities?
      (a) Process fugitive emissions sources.
      (1) You must prepare and at all times operate according to, a process fugitive emissions ventilation plan that documents the design and operations to achieve at least 95 percent overall capture of process fugitive emissions. The plan will be deemed to achieve this level of capture if it consists of the following elements:
      (i) Documentation of engineered hoods and secondary fugitive capture systems designed according to the most recent, at the time of construction, ventilation design principles recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The process fugitive emissions capture systems must be designed to achieve sufficient air changes to evacuate the collection area frequently enough to ensure process fugitive emissions are effectively collected by the ventilation system and ducted to the control device(s). Include a schematic for each building indicating duct sizes and locations, hood sizes and locations, control device types, size and locations and exhaust locations. The design plan must address variables that affect capture efficiency such as operations that create cross-drafts and describe protocol or design characteristics to minimize such events. The design plan must identify the key operating parameters and measurement locations to ensure proper operation of the system and establish monitoring parameter values that reflect effective capture.
      (ii) List of critical maintenance actions and the schedule to conduct them.
      (2) You must submit a copy of the process fugitive emissions ventilation plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in §63.1621 in electronic format and whenever an update is made to the plan. The requirement for you to operate the facility according to the written process fugitives ventilation plan and specifications must be incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued by the designated permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
      (3) You must update the information required in paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section every 5 years or whenever there is a significant change in variables that affect process fugitives ventilation design such as the addition of a new process.
      (b) Outdoor fugitive dust sources.
      (1) You must prepare and at all times operate according to, an outdoor fugitive dust control plan that describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to control outdoor fugitive dust emissions from the individual fugitive dust sources at the facility.
      (2) You must submit a copy of the outdoor fugitive dust control plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in §63.1621. The requirement for you to operate the facility according to a written outdoor fugitive dust control plan must be incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued by the designated permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
      (3) You are permitted to use existing manuals that describe the measures in place to control outdoor fugitive dust sources required as part of a state implementation plan or other federally enforceable requirement for particulate matter to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
8. Section 63.1625 is added to read as follows:
§63.1625 What are the performance test and compliance requirements for new, reconstructed and existing facilities?
      (a) Performance testing.
      (1) All performance tests must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 of subpart A.
      (2) Each performance test in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) must consist of three separate and complete runs using the applicable test methods.
      (3) Each run must be conducted under conditions that are representative of normal process operations.
      (4) Performance tests conducted on air pollution control devices serving electric arc furnaces must be conducted such that at least one tapping period, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, whichever is less, is included in at least two of the three runs. The sampling time for each run must be at least as long as three times the average tapping period of the tested furnace, but no less than 60 minutes.
      (5) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraph (c) of this section under such conditions as the Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
      (b) Test methods. The following test methods in appendices of part 60 or 63 of this chapter or as specified elsewhere must be used to determine compliance with the emission standards.
      (1) Method 1 of Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select the sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
      (2) Method 2 of Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
      (3)(i) Method 3A or 3B of Appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 (with integrated bag sampling) to determine the outlet stack and inlet oxygen and CO2 content.
      (ii) You must measure CO2 concentrations at both the inlet and outlet of the positive pressure fabric filter in conjunction with the pollutant sampling in order to determine isokinetic sampling rates.
      (iii) As an alternative to EPA Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC-19-10-1981-Part 10, "Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses" may be used (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14).
      (4) Method 4 of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
      (5)(i) Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the particulate matter concentration of the stack gas for negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses with stacks.
      (ii) Method 5D of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate of the stack gas for positive pressure baghouses without stacks.
      (iii) The sample volume for each run must be a minimum of 4.0 cubic meters (141.2 cubic feet). For Method 5 testing only, you may choose to collect less than 4.0 cubic meters per run provided that the filterable mass collected (e.g., net filter mass plus mass of nozzle, probe and filter holder rinses) is equal to or greater than 10 mg. If the total mass collected for two of three of the runs is less than 10 mg, you must conduct at least one additional test run that produces at least 10 mg of filterable mass collected (i.e., at a greater sample volume). Report the results of all test runs.
      (6) Method 30B of Appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 to measure mercury. Apply the minimum sample volume determination procedures as per the method.
      (7)(i) Method 26A of Appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine outlet stack or inlet hydrochloric acid concentration.
      (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 2 cubic meters.
      (8)(i) Method 316 of Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 to determine outlet stack or inlet formaldehyde.
      (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 cubic meter.
      (9) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine opacity. ASTM D7520-09, "Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere" may be used (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the following conditions:
      (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-09, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
      (ii) You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-09.
      (iii) You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in §63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
      (iv) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 20 percent opacity of any one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
      (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-09 and these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
      (10) Methods to determine the mercury content of manganese ore including a total metals digestion technique, SW-846 Method 3052 and a mercury specific analysis method, SW-846 Method 7471b (Cold Vapor AA) or Water Method 1631E (Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence).
      (11) California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources to determine total PAH emissions. The method is available from California Resources Board, 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95814, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/M_429.pdf).
      (12) The owner or operator may use alternative measurement methods approved by the Administrator following the procedures described in §63.7(f) of subpart A.
      (c) Compliance demonstration with the emission standards.
      (1) Initial Performance Test. You must conduct an initial performance test for air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to §63.1623(a), (b)(1) and (c) through (e) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
      (2) Periodic Performance Test. (i) You must conduct annual particulate matter tests for wet scrubber air pollution control devices subject to §63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
      (ii) You must conduct particulate matter tests every five years for fabric filter air pollution control devices subject to §63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
      (iii) You must conduct annual mercury performance tests for wet scrubber and fabric filter air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to §63.1623 (a)(2) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
      (iv) You must conduct ongoing performance tests every five years for air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to §63.1623(a)(3) through (a)(5), (b)(1) and (c) through (e) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
      (3) Compliance is demonstrated for all sources performing emissions tests if the average concentration for the three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed the standard.
      (4) Operating Limits. You must establish parameter operating limits according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of this section. Unless otherwise specified, compliance with each established operating limit shall be demonstrated for each 24-hour operating day.
      (i) For a wet particulate matter scrubber, you must establish the minimum liquid flow rate and pressure drop as your operating limits during the three-run performance test. If you use a wet particulate matter scrubber and you conduct separate performance tests for particulate matter, you must establish one set of minimum liquid flow rate and pressure drop operating limits. If you conduct multiple performance tests, you must set the minimum liquid flow rate and pressure drop operating limits at the highest minimum hourly average values established during the performance tests.
      (ii) For a wet acid gas scrubber, you must establish the minimum liquid flow rate and pH, as your operating limits during the three-run performance test. If you use a wet acid gas scrubber and you conduct separate performance tests for hydrochloric acid, you must establish one set of minimum liquid flow rate and pH operating limits. If you conduct multiple performance tests, you must set the minimum liquid flow rate and pH operating limits at the highest minimum hourly average values established during the performance tests.

       (iii) For emission sources with fabric filters that choose to demonstrate continuous compliance through bag leak detection systems you must install a bag leak detection system according to the requirements in §63.1626(d) and you must set your operating limit such that the sum duration of bag leak detection system alarms does not exceed 5 percent of the process operating time during a 6-month period.
      (iv) If you choose to demonstrate continuous compliance through a particulate matter CEMS, you must determine an operating limit (particulate matter concentration in mg/dscm) during performance testing for initial particulate matter compliance. The operating limit will be the average of the PM filterable results of the three Method 5 or Method 5D of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 performance test runs. To determine continuous compliance, the hourly average PM concentrations will be averaged on a rolling 30 operating day basis. Each 30 operating day average would have to meet the PM operating limit.

      (d) Compliance demonstration with shop building opacity standards.
      (1)(i) If you are subject to §63.1623(b), you must conduct opacity observations of the shop building to demonstrate compliance with the applicable opacity standards according to §63.6(h)(5), which addresses the conduct of opacity or visible emission observations.
      (ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4, for a period that includes at least one complete furnace process cycle for each furnace.
      (iii) You must conduct the opacity observations at least once per week for each operating furnace.
      (2) You must determine shop building opacity operating parameters based on either monitoring data collected during the compliance demonstration or established in an engineering assessment.
      (i) If you choose to establish parameters based on the initial compliance demonstration, you must simultaneously monitor parameter values for one of the following: the capture system fan motor amperes and all capture system damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate to the air pollution control device and all capture system damper positions, or volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood that comprises the capture system. Subsequently you must monitor these parameters according to §63.1626(h) and ensure they remain within 10 percent of the value recorded during the compliant opacity readings.
      (ii) If you choose to establish parameters based on an engineering assessment, then a design analysis shall include, for example, specifications, drawings, schematics and ventilation system diagrams prepared by the owner or operator or capture or control system manufacturer or vendor that describes the shop building opacity system ventilation design based on acceptable engineering texts. The design analysis shall address vent stream characteristics and ventilation system design operating parameters such as fan amps, damper position, flow rate and/or other specified parameters.
      (iii) You may petition the Administrator to reestablish these parameter ranges whenever you can demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the electric arc furnace operating conditions upon which the parameter ranges were previously established are no longer applicable. The values of these parameter ranges determined during the most recent demonstration of compliance must be maintained at the appropriate level for each applicable period.
(3) You will demonstrate continuing compliance with the opacity standards by following the monitoring requirements specified in §63.1626(g) and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified in §63.1628(b)(5).
      (e) Compliance demonstration with the operational and work practice standards
      (1) Process fugitive emissions sources. You will demonstrate compliance by developing and maintaining a process fugitives ventilation plan, by reporting any deviations from the plan and by taking necessary corrective actions to correct deviations or deficiencies.
      (2) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. You will demonstrate compliance by developing and maintaining an outdoor fugitive dust control plan, by reporting any deviations from the plan and by taking necessary corrective actions to correct deviations or deficiencies.
      (3) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. You will demonstrate compliance with the bag leak detection system requirements by developing analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §60.57c(h).
9. Section 63.1626 is added to read as follows:
§63.1626 What monitoring requirements must I meet?
      (a) Baghouse Monitoring. You must prepare and at all times operate according to, a standard operating procedures manual that describes in detail procedures for inspection, maintenance and bag leak detection and corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge filters) that are used to control process vents, process fugitive, or outdoor fugitive dust emissions from any source subject to the emissions standards in §63.1623.
      (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
      (c) Unless the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak detection system, the procedures that you specify in the standard operating procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance must, at a minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
      (1) You must observe the baghouse outlet on a daily basis for the presence of any visible emissions.
      (2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, you must conduct the following activities:
      (i) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper functioning of removal mechanisms.
      (ii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
      (iii) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation.
      (iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through visual inspection or equivalent means.
      (v) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type baghouses to ensure that the bags are not kinked (kneed or bent) or lying on their sides. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
      (vi) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the baghouse structure through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
      (vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
      (d) Bag leak detection system.
      (1) For each baghouse used to control emissions from an electric arc furnace, you must install, operate and maintain a bag leak detection system according to paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this section, unless a system meeting the requirements of paragraph (q) of this section, for a CEMS and continuous emissions rate monitoring system, is installed for monitoring the concentration of particulate matter. You may choose to install, operate and maintain a bag leak detection system for any other baghouse in operation at the facility according to paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this section.
      (2) The procedures you specified in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a minimum, a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the baghouse manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
      (3) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of this section.
      (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
      (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative PM loadings.
      (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset level.
      (iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in "Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance" EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference) and the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations for installation, operation and adjustment of the system.
      (v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum, consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
      (vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this section. You cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the baghouse is in good operating condition.
      (vii) You must install the bag leak detector downstream of the baghouse.
      (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
      (4) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a minimum, the procedures that you will use to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section.
      (i) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
      (ii) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to, those listed in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) through (d)(4)(i)(F) of this section.
      (A) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in emissions.
      (B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
      (C) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise repairing the control device.
      (D) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
      (E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system.
      (F) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
      (e) If you use a wet particulate matter scrubber, you must collect the pressure drop and liquid flow rate monitoring system data according to §63.1628, reduce the data to 24-hour block averages and maintain the 24-hour average pressure drop and liquid flow-rate at or above the operating limits established during the performance test according to §63.1625(c)(4)(i).
      (f) If you use curtains or partitions to prevent process fugitive emissions from escaping the area around the process fugitive emission source or other parts of the building, you must perform quarterly inspections of the physical condition of these curtains or partitions to determine if there are any tears or openings.
      (g) Shop building opacity. In order to demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity standards in §63.1623, you must comply with the requirements §63.1625(d)(1) and one of the monitoring options in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section. The selected option must be consistent with that selected during the initial performance test described in §63.1625(d)(2). Alternatively, you may use the provisions of §63.8(f) to request approval to use an alternative monitoring method.
      (1) If you choose to establish operating parameters during the compliance test as specified in §63.1625(d)(2)(i), you must meet one of the following requirements.
      (i) Check and record the control system fan motor amperes and capture system damper positions once per shift.
      (ii) Install, calibrate and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood.
      (iii) Install, calibrate and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the air pollution control device and check and record the capture system damper positions once per shift.
      (2) If you choose to establish operating parameters during the compliance test as specified in §63.1625(d)(2)(ii), you must monitor the selected parameter(s) on a frequency specified in the assessment and according to a method specified in the engineering assessment
      (3) All flow rate monitoring devices must meet the following requirements:
      (i) Be installed in an appropriate location in the exhaust duct such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result.
      (ii) Have an accuracy +-10 percent over its normal operating range and be calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
      (4) The Administrator may require you to demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A-1 of part 60 of this chapter.
      (5) Failure to maintain the appropriate capture system parameters (e.g., fan motor amperes, flow rate and/or damper positions) establishes the need to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the monitoring excursion in order to minimize excess emissions.
       (h) Furnace Capture System. You must perform quarterly (once every three months) inspections of the furnace fugitive capture system equipment to ensure that the hood locations have not been changed or obstructed because of contact with cranes or ladles, quarterly inspections of the physical condition of hoods and ductwork to the control device to determine if there are any openings or leaks in the ductwork, quarterly inspections of the hoods and ductwork to determine if there are any flow constrictions in ductwork due to dents or accumulated dust and quarterly examinations of the operational status of flow rate controllers (pressure sensors, dampers, damper switches, etc.) to ensure they are operating correctly. Any deficiencies must be recorded and proper maintenance and repairs performed.
      (i) Requirements for sources using CMS. If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through use of a continuous monitoring system (CMS), where a CMS includes a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as well as a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan and submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation (where applicable) of your CMS. Your site-specific monitoring plan must address the monitoring system design, data collection and the quality assurance and quality control elements outlined in this section and in §63.8(d). You must install, operate and maintain each CMS according to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan. Using the process described in §63.8(f)(4), you may request approval of monitoring system quality assurance and quality control procedures alternative to those specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(6) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan.
      (1) The performance criteria and design specifications for the monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, detector signal analyzer and data acquisition and calculations;
      (2) Sampling interface location such that the monitoring system will provide representative measurements;
      (3) Equipment performance checks, system accuracy audits, or other audit procedures;
      (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §63.8(c)(1) and (c)(3);
      (5) Conditions that define a continuous monitoring system that is out of control consistent with §63.8(c)(7)(i) and for responding to out of control periods consistent with §63.8(c)(7)(ii) and (c)(8) or Appendix A to this subpart, as applicable; and
      (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with provisions in §63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i) and Appendix A to this subpart, as applicable.
      (j) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CPMS, you must install, operate and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(7) of this section.
      (1) The continuous parameter monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
      (2) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, system accuracy audits and required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the CMS at all times the affected source is operating. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You are required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as practicable.
      (3) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must use all the data collected during all other required data collection periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.
      (4) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions and required quality monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, system accuracy audits and required zero and span adjustments), failure to collect required data is a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
      (5) You must conduct other CPMS equipment performance checks, system accuracy audits, or other audit procedures specified in your site-specific monitoring plan at least once every 12 months.
      (6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
      (7) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration and validation check.
      (k) CPMS for measuring gaseous flow.
      (1) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per minute, whichever is greater,
      (2) Check all mechanical connections for leakage at least every month and
      (3) Perform a visual inspection at least every 3 months of all components of the flow CPMS for physical and operational integrity and all electrical connections for oxidation and galvanic corrosion if your flow CPMS is not equipped with a redundant flow sensor.
      (l) CPMS for measuring liquid flow.
      (1) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the flow rate and
      (2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
      (m) CPMS for measuring pressure.
      (1) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration and internal and external corrosion and
      (2) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
      (3) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily).

       (n) CPMS for measuring pH.
      (1) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured.
      (2) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every eight hours of process operation.
      (o) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you are using a CEMS to measure particulate matter emissions to meet requirements of this subpart, you must install, certify, operate and maintain the particulate matter CEMS as specified in paragraphs (q)(1) through (q)(4) of this section.
      (1) You must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS according to the applicable requirements of §60.13 and Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B of this chapter.
      (2) During each PM correlation testing run of the CEMS required by Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B of this chapter, PM and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) collect data concurrently (or within a 30-to 60-minute period) by both the CEMS and by conducting performance tests using Method 5 or 5D at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A - 3 or Method 17 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A - 6 of this chapter.
      (3) Perform quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests in accordance with Procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F of this chapter. Relative Response Audits must be performed annually and Response Correlation Audits must be performed every three years.
      (4) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS relative accuracy test audit or performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and the results of the performance test in the as specified in §63.1628(e).

10. Section 63.1627 is added to read as follows:

§63.162711. Section 63.1628 is added to read as follows:
 What notification requirements must I meet?
      (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of §63.9 of subpart A, General Provisions. Electronic notifications are encouraged when possible.
      (b)(1) You must submit the process fugitives ventilation plan required under §63.1624(a), the outdoor fugitive dust control plan required under §63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required under §63.1626(i) and the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under §63.1626(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with a notification that you are seeking review and approval of these plans and procedures. You must submit this notification no later than [INSERT DATE OF 1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. For sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], you must submit this notification no later than 180 days before startup of the constructed or reconstructed ferromanganese or silicomanganese production facility. For an affected source that has received a construction permit from the Administrator or delegated authority on or before [INSERT DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], you must submit this notification no later than [INSERT DATE OF 1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
      (2) The plans and procedures documents submitted as required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be submitted to the Administrator in electronic format for review and approval of the initial submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
11. Section 63.1628 is added to read as follows:
§63.162812. Section 63.1629 is added to read as follows:
 What recordkeeping and reporting requirements must I meet?
      (a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in §63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
      (1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged and required for some records and reports.
      (2) Records must be kept on site for at least two years after the date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1).
      (b) You must maintain, for a period of five years, records of the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13) of this section.
      (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
      (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the corrective actions taken and the date and time the cause of the alarm was corrected.
      (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required under §63.1626(a) as part of the practices described in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under §63.1626(c).
      (4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate values for wet scrubbers used to control particulate matter emissions as required in §63.1626(e), identification of periods when the 1-hour average pressure drop and water flow rate values below the established minimum established and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
      (5) Electronic records of the shop building capture system monitoring required under §63.1626(g)(1) and (g)(2), as applicable, or identification of periods when the capture system parameters were not maintained and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
      (6) Records of the results of quarterly inspections of the furnace capture system required under §63.1626(h).
      (7) Electronic records of the continuous flow monitors or pressure monitors required under §63.1626(j) and (k) and an identification of periods when the flow rate or pressure was not maintained as required in §63.1626(e).
      (8) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed to monitor particulate matter emissions meeting the requirements of §63.1626(i)
       (9) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup and/or shutdown.
      (10) Records of the occurrence and duration of each
      malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment.

       (11) Records that explain the periods when the procedures outlined in the process fugitives ventilation plan required under §63.1624(a), the fugitives dust control plan required under §63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required under §63.1626(i) and the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under §63.1626(a).
      (c) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements specified in §63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
      (1) You must submit reports no less frequently than specified under §63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions.
      (2) Once a source reports a violation of the standard or excess emissions, you must follow the reporting format required under §63.10(e)(3) until a request to reduce reporting frequency is approved by the Administrator.
      (d) In addition to the information required under the applicable sections of §63.10, you must include in the reports required under paragraph (c) of this section the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(7) of this section.
      (1) Reports that explain the periods when the procedures outlined in the process fugitives ventilation plan required under §63.1624(a), the fugitives dust control plan required under §63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required under §63.1626(i) and the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under §63.1626(a).
      (2) Reports that identify the periods when the average hourly pressure drop or flow rate of venturi scrubbers used to control particulate emissions dropped below the levels established in §63.1626(e) and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
      (3) Bag leak detection system. Reports including the following information:
      (i) Records of all alarms.
      (ii) Description of the actions taken following each bag leak detection system alarm.
      (4) Reports of the shop building capture system monitoring required under §63.1626(g)(1) and (g)(2), as applicable, identification of periods when the capture system parameters were not maintained and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
      (5) Reports of the results of quarterly inspections of the furnace capture system required under §63.1626(h).
      (6) Reports of the CPMS required under §63.1626, an identification of periods when the monitored parameters were not maintained as required in §63.1626 and corrective actions taken.
      (7) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the report must include the number, duration and a brief description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and caused or may have caused any applicable emissions limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.1623(f), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
      (e) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS relative accuracy test audit or performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and the results of the performance test in the method specified by paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(2) of this section. The results of the performance test must contain the information listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
      (1)(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2), you must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) or (e)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
      (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), you must submit the results of the performance test to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless the Administrator approves another approach. Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Owners or operators, who claim that some of the information being submitted for performance tests is confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA.. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:  WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC  27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
      (B) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website, the owner or operator shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13.
      (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation (as defined in §63.2), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation according to the method specified by either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
      (A) For data collection of relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the CEDRI that is accessed through the EPA's CDX, unless the Administrator approves another approach. Performance evaluation data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. If you claim that some of the performance evaluation information being transmitted is CBI, you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) by registered letter to the EPA. The compact disk shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC  27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
      (B) For any performance evaluations with RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website, you shall submit the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13.

       (2) The results of a performance test shall include the purpose of the test; a brief process description; a complete unit description, including a description of feed streams and control devices; sampling site description; pollutants measured; description of sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to standard procedures; quality assurance procedures; record of operating conditions, including operating parameters for which limits are being set, during the test; record of preparation of standards; record of calibrations; raw data sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses; chain-of-custody documentation; explanation of laboratory data qualifiers; example calculations of all applicable stack gas parameters, emission rates, percent reduction rates and analytical results, as applicable; and any other information required by the test method, a relevant standard, or the Administrator.
12. Section 63.1629 is added to read as follows:

§63.1629 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
      (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a state, local, or tribal agency.
      (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot be transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency.
      (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
      (1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in §§63.1620 and 63.1621 and 63.1623 and 63.1624.
      (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in §63.90 and as required in this subpart.
      (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under §63.8(f), as defined in §63.90 and as required in this subpart.
      (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f), as defined in §63.90 and as required in this subpart.
13. Section 63.1650 is amended by:
      a. Revising paragraph (d);
      b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1); and
      c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
§63.1650 Applicability and Compliance Dates.
* * * * *
      (d) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A of this part that apply to owners and operators of ferroalloy production facilities subject to this subpart.
      (e) * * *
      (1) [Reserved]
      (2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after August 4, 1998 and before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], must comply with the requirements of this subpart by May 20,1999 or upon startup of operations, whichever is later.

14. Section 63.1652 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§63.1652 Emission standards.
* * * * *
      (f) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records and inspection of the source.
15. Section 63.1656 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(7);
c. Revising paragraph (e)(1); and
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§63.1656 Performance testing, test methods and compliance demonstrations.
      (a) * * *
      (6) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraph (c) of this section under such conditions as the Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
      (b)(7) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine opacity. ASTM D7520-09, "Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere" may be used (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the following conditions:
      (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-09, the owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
      (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-09.
      (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in §63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
      (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
      (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-09 and these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
      (e) * * *
      (1) Fugitive dust sources. Failure to have a fugitive dust control plan or failure to report deviations from the plan and take necessary corrective action would be a violation of the general duty to ensure that fugitive dust sources are operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions per §63.1652(f).
      (2) * * *
      (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
16. Section 63.1657 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
c. Revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:
§63.1657 Monitoring requirements.
      (a) * * *
      (6) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section would be a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per §63.1652(f).
      (b) * * *
      (3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section would be a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per §63.1652(f).
      (c) * * *
      (7) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section would be a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per §63.1652(f).
17. Section 63.1659 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
      (a) * * *
      (4) Reporting malfunctions. If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the report must include the number, duration and a brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.1652(f), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
18. Section 63.1660 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii); and
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(2)(v) to read as follows:
      (a) * * *
      (2) * * *
      (i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment;
      (ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.1652(f), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation;
* * * * *
      (iv) [Reserved]
      (v) [Reserved]
* * * * *

19. Add Table 1 to the end of subpart XXX to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart XXX of Part 63 -- General Provisions Applicability to Subpart XXX
Reference
Applies to subpart XXX
Comment
63.1
Yes

63.2
Yes

63.3
Yes

63.4
Yes

63.5
Yes

63.6(a), (b), (c)
Yes

63.6(d)
No
Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i)
No
See 63.1623(g) and 63.1652(f) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)
No

63.6(e)(1)(iii)
Yes

63.6(e)(2)
No
Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)
No

63.6(f)(1)
No

6.6(f)(2)  -  (f)(3)
Yes

63.6(g)
Yes

63.6(h)(1)
No

63.6(h)(2)  -  (h)(9)
Yes
.
63.6(i)
Yes

63.6(j)
Yes

§63.7(a)-(d)
Yes

§63.7(e)(1)
No
See 63.1625(a)(5) and 63.1656(a)(6)
§63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)
Yes

63.7(f), (g), (h)
Yes

63.8(a)-(b)
Yes

63.8(c)(1)(i)
No
See 63.1623(g) and 63.1652(f) for general duty requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)
Yes

63.8(c)(1)(iii)
No

63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)
Yes

63.8(d)(3)
Yes, except for last sentence
SSM plans are not required.
63.8(e)-(g)
Yes

63.9(a),(b),(c),(e),(g),(h)(1)through (3), (h)(5) and (6), (i) and (j)
Yes

63.9(f)
Yes

63.9(h)(4)
No
Reserved
63.10 (a)
Yes

63.10 (b)(1)
Yes

63.10(b)(2)(i)
No

63.10(b)(2)(ii)
No
See 63.1628 and 63.1660 for recordkeeping of (1) occurrence and duration and (2) actions taken during malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)
Yes

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)
No

63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)
Yes

63.10)(b)(3)
Yes

63.10(c)(1)-(9)
Yes

63.10(c)(10)-(11)
No
See 63.1628 and 63.1660 for malfunction recordkeeping requirements.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)
Yes

63.10(c)(15)
No

63.10(d)(1)-(4)
Yes

63.10(d)(5)
No
See 63.1628(d)(8) and 63.1659(a)(4) for malfunction reporting requirements.
63.10(e)-((f)
Yes

63.11
No
Flares will not be used to comply with the emission limits
63.12 to 63.15
Yes