[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33415-33421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16012]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-5525-5]
RIN 2060-AG33
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes revisions and clarifications to several
provisions of the standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral
processing plants, which were promulgated in the Federal Register on
August 1, 1985 (50 FR 31328). On January 26, 1995, the National Stone
Association petitioned EPA to review the existing standards. These
revisions are in keeping with President Clinton's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative. The intended effect of this action is to reduce
the costs of emission testing and reporting and recordkeeping. The
affected industries and numerical emission limits remain unchanged
except for individual, enclosed storage bins.
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested
persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments concerning the proposed revised standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 26,
1996.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by July 23, 1996, a public hearing will be held on
August 5, 1996 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should call Ms. Cathy Coats at (919) 541-5422 to verify that a
hearing will be held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by July 23, 1996 (contact Ms. Cathy Coats at
(919) 541-5422.)
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), ATTN: Docket No. A-95-46, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.''
Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent
directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to
ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the
docket: Attention: Mr. William Neuffer, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS/MD-13; Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Information covered by such a
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received
by the EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-46, containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed revisions is available for public inspection
and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548, fax (202) 260-4000. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Neuffer at (919) 541-5435,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by EPA's final action on this
proposed rule are new, modified, or reconstructed affected facilities
in nonmetallic mineral processing plants. These categories and entities
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Crushed and broken stone, sand and
gravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum,
sodium compounds, pumice,
gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite,
boron, barite, fluorospar,
feldspar, diatomite, perlite,
vermiculite, mica, kyanite
processing plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final
action on this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that
EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by final action on this
proposal. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by final
action on this proposal, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria in Sec. 60.670 of the rule. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Revisions to NSPS
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
D. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
1. Paperwork Reduction Act
2. Executive Order 12866
3. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
I. Background.
Standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral processing plants
were promulgated in the Federal Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR
31328). These standards implement section 111 of the Clean Air Act and
require all new, modified, and reconstructed nonmetallic mineral
processing plants to achieve emission levels that reflect the best
demonstrated system of continuous emission
[[Page 33416]]
reduction, considering costs, nonair quality health, and environmental
and energy impacts.
The promulgated standards apply to new, modified, and reconstructed
facilities at plants that process any of the following 18 nonmetallic
minerals: crushed and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay, rock salt,
gypsum, sodium compounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite,
boron, barite, fluorospar, feldspar, diatomite, perlite, vermiculite,
mica, and kyanite. The affected facilities are each crusher, grinding
mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging
operation, storage bin, and enclosed truck or railcar loading station.
On January 26, 1995, the National Stone Association (NSA)
petitioned the EPA, pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the
Administrative Procedures Act, to review the existing NSPS for
nonmetallic mineral processing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO). In
its petition, NSA and its member companies requested the EPA to review
and consider revising, in particular, the provisions in the NSPS that
pertain to the test methods and procedures. Also, NSA requested that
several of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements be reduced or
eliminated.
II. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Revisions to NSPS
A. Summary of Proposed Revisions
As a result of the EPA's review of concerns raised by NSA and its
member companies and discussions with State and Local air pollution
control agencies, the Administrator has concluded that several
revisions to the NSPS are warranted. The following is a brief summary
of the proposed revisions to the NSPS, followed by a discussion of the
basis for the proposed revisions.
1. Section 60.670, Applicability and designation of affected
facility, is being revised:
a. To clarify that facilities located in underground mines are not
subject to the NSPS;
b. To exempt wet screening operations from all requirements of the
NSPS, except the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
Sec. 60.676(g).
c. To clarify within subpart OOO which General Provisions (40 CFR
Part 60, subpart A) requirements apply to owners and operators of
affected facilities subject to the NSPS. A table has been included to
clarify the applicable General Provisions requirements.
2. Section 60.671, Definitions, is being revised to add a
definition of ``wet screening operation.''
3. Section 60.672, Standard for particulate matter, is being
revised:
a. To state the particulate matter standard for an individual,
enclosed storage bin ducted to a single control device.
b. To clarify that affected facilities are subject to a standard
for stack emissions of particulate matter and a stack opacity standard.
4. Section 60.675, Test methods and procedures, is being revised:
a. To reduce the duration of Method 9 observations of fugitive
emissions for compliance for any affected facility from 3 hours (30 6-
minute averages) to 1 hour (10 6-minute averages) if there are no
individual readings greater than 10% opacity and there are no more than
3 individual readings of 10% opacity during the 1 hour test period.
b. To allow the use of Method 9, in lieu of Method 5, for
determining compliance for fabric filter collectors controlling
particulate matter emissions from an individual, enclosed storage bin
ducted to a baghouse that only controls emissions from this bin. For
compliance purposes, the duration of the Method 9 observations for any
baghouse controlling an individual, enclosed storage bin will be 1 hour
(10 6-minute averages).
c. To reduce the General Provisions (section 60.8(d)) notification
requirement from 30 days to 7 days prior notice of any rescheduled
performance test if there is a delay in conducting any previously
scheduled performance test for which 30 days notice has been supplied
under this NSPS.
5. Section 60.676, Reporting and recordkeeping, is being revised:
a. To delete the requirement to report ``like-for-like
replacements'' of equipment to the Director, Emission Standards
Division (section 60.676(b)).
b. To waive the requirement in the General Provisions (section
60.7(a)(2)) for notification of the anticipated date of initial startup
of an affected facility.
c. To allow a single notification of the actual date of initial
startup of a combination of affected facilities in a production line
that begin initial startup simultaneously, in lieu of multiple
notifications of the actual date of initial startup of individual
affected facilities. The notification must include a description of
each affected facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number, if
available.
B. Rationale for Proposed Revisions to NSPS
1. Applicability
a. As a result of past inquiries from some plant owners and
operators as to whether crushers or any other equipment used in
nonmetallic mineral processing that are located in underground mines
are subject to the NSPS, the EPA is clarifying its intent by adding
language to the regulation to state that this NSPS does not apply to
facilities located in underground mines. Emissions from crushers or
other facilities in underground mines are vented in the general mine
exhaust and cannot be distinguished from emissions from drilling and
blasting operations which are not covered by the standards. Therefore,
the EPA is clarifying its intent that crushers and other facilities
located in underground mines not be regulated under the NSPS
(Sec. 60.670(a)).
b. The EPA is also proposing a revision to Sec. 60.670(a), which
states that the provisions of the NSPS do not apply, except for one-
time recordkeeping and reporting, to wet screening operations and
associated belt conveyors downstream of the wet screening operation in
the production line up to, but not including, the next crusher,
grinding mill or dry screening operation in the production line of a
nonmetallic minerals processing plant. For further clarification, ``wet
screening operation'' is being defined in the regulation as ``a
screening facility designed and operated at all times to remove
unwanted material from the product by a washing process whereby the
product is completely saturated with water.'' There is no potential for
air emissions from either screening or conveying operations in the wet/
wash end of a processing plant unless a crusher, grinding mill or dry
screeening operation is included in the process. Therefore, wet
screening operations are not subject to the provisions of Secs. 60.672,
60.674, and 60.675 under this regulation (subpart OOO) or the General
Provisions (subpart A). The only requirement for wet screening
operations is a one-time recordkeeping and reporting requirement under
section 60.676(g) of the NSPS.
It is possible, however, that a screening facility/operation may be
operated as wet screening at one location where a washing process is
used to remove unwanted material from the product; later, at the same
location or after movement to another location, it may no longer
operate as wet screening. In these cases, where it ceases operating as
a wet screen, applicability of all the provisions of this regulation
would be triggered and the screening operation would become an affected
facility subject to all of the requirements of this regulation and the
General Provisions (Subpart A). For tracking purposes, a one-time
[[Page 33417]]
recordkeeping and reporting requirement for wet screening operations
has been added to the NSPS (Sec. 60.676(g)).
c. The NSA and its member companies requested clarification of the
applicable General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) requirements
for owners and operators of affected facilities subject to this NSPS
(Subpart OOO). They stated that many of their members were unaware that
the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) existed or applied
in addition to this NSPS. Therefore, in an effort to facilitate an
awareness and a better understanding of the General Provisions
requirements and implementation of those requirements, the EPA is
adding a table to the regulation (subpart OOO) that specifies the
provisions of subpart A that apply and those that do not apply to
owners and operators of affected facilities subject to Subpart OOO.
2. Standard for Particulate Matter
In the past, there have been several requests for clarification of
Sec. 60.672(a) of the regulation regarding whether owners or operators
of affected facilities are subject to both a standard for stack
emissions of particulate matter and a stack opacity standard. The
preamble for the promulgated rule clearly states that affected
facilities are subject to both the stack emission limit and stack
opacity standard (50 FR 31329-first column; August 1, 1985). Therefore,
the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1) in Sec. 60.672 has been
deleted to remove any ambiquity in the requirements.
3. Test Methods and Procedures
a. One of the concerns of the NSA and its member companies was the
duration of Method 9 testing (3 hours for each fugitive-type emission
source) for fugitive emissions from affected facilities such as
crushers and belt conveyor transfer points, in situations when almost
all 15-second observations are observed to be 0 percent opacity. They
asserted that usually no emissions were observed from these affected
facilities (when properly maintained and operated) during the Method 9
observations, and therefore they did not believe that 3 hours of
observations were justified or necessary for determining compliance.
Due to the large number of these affected facilities at nonmetallic
mineral processing plants, the amount of time and the cost for Method 9
observations from these sources were considered by NSA to be very
burdensome.
The General Provisions (Sec. 60.11(b)) require 3 hours (30 6-minute
averages) of Method 9 observations for determining compliance for
fugitive emission sources. However, after review and evaluation of data
submitted by the industry, the EPA has decided to reduce the Method 9
testing duration for observing fugitive emissions from any affected
facility subject to this NSPS from 3 hours (30 6-minute averages) to 1
hour (10 6-minute averages) if there are no individual readings greater
than 10% opacity and there are no more than 3 individual readings of
10% opacity during this first hour.
The data submitted to the EPA by industry for review was compiled
from several hundred visible emission tests conducted by the industry
for each type of affected facility subject to the NSPS. The majority
(52 percent) of the visible emission tests were conducted for belt
conveyor transfer points. The data included opacity readings from 58
different 3 hour tests. For the first hour, the test results showed
that 51 of the 58 3-hour tests had no individual readings of 10 percent
or greater. Only 3 belt conveyor transfer points had individual
readings greater than 10%. Only 5 belt conveyor transfer points had
more than 3 individual readings of 10%. The most obvious result
obtained from the tests was the consistency of the readings from hour
to hour. Readings during the first hour of testing were in line with
readings taken during hours 2 and 3. If a problem existed at a transfer
point or other fugitive emission source, it would be evident during the
first hour of testing. Therefore, for these reasons, EPA believes that
1 hour (10 6-minute averages) of Method 9 observations is sufficient
for any affected facility to show compliance with the fugitive emission
standard if there are no individual readings greater than 10% opacity
and there are no more than 3 individual readings of 10% opacity during
the first hour.
b. Also of concern to NSA and its members is the requirement in the
NSPS for Method 5 testing of fabric filter collectors (baghouses)
controlling particulate matter emissions from individual, enclosed
storage bins ducted to a single baghouse. They requested that
individual, enclosed storage bin emissions be exempted from Method 5
testing because the baghouse outlet is not amenable to Method 5 testing
due to the intermittent nature of individual storage bin operations and
the small air flow rates.
Information supplied by NSA indicates that Method 5 testing cannot
be performed for baghouses that only control emissions from individual,
enclosed storage bins unless the emissions are combined with emissions
from other storage bins or other affected facilities in order to
determine compliance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to exempt a
baghouse that only controls emissions from an individual, enclosed
storage bin from Method 5 stack emission testing. Compliance for an
individual, enclosed storage bin ducted to a single baghouse will be
determined by Method 9 (Sec. 60.672(f)). For compliance purposes, one
hour (10 6-minute averages) of Method 9 observations will be required
for each individual, enclosed storage bin. Multiple storage bins with
combined stack emissions controlled by a baghouse are subject to Method
5 testing and concurrent Method 9 testing as required under
Sec. 60.672(g).
c. The General Provisions (Sec. 60.8(d)) require 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, ``* * * except as specified under other
subparts * * *.'' In cases where a performance test must be
rescheduled, due to operational problems, etc., it is not always
reasonable or necessary to provide 30 days prior notice to EPA or the
State of the new date of the performance test. Based on conversations
with personnel who are affected by the notification of the new date of
the performance test (i.e., personnel at EPA Regional Offices and State
agencies), the EPA has determined that after the initial 30-day
notification, then notice provided 7 days prior to a rescheduled test
is sufficient time to provide the Regional, State or Local agencies the
opportunity to have an observer present. Therefore, Sec. 60.675 has
been revised to reflect this allowance.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping
a. Under the promulgated standards, the replacement of an existing
facility with a new facility of equal or smaller size and having the
same function (like-for-like replacement) is exempt from compliance
with the emission limits of the NSPS (Sec. 60.670(d)(1)). In order to
qualify for this exemption, an owner or operator replacing an existing
facility with a new facility of equal or smaller size must report this
to the EPA Regional Offices and to the States (if the particular State
has been delegated NSPS authority). This information and additional
information is also required to be reported to the Director of the
Emission Standards Division of EPA in order to assess the frequency and
characteristics of such replacements.
The EPA has reviewed this requirement and has determined that the
report to the Director of the Emission Standards Division is no longer
needed for like-for-like replacements. Therefore, in an effort to
streamline the reporting requirements of
[[Page 33418]]
this NSPS, this requirement in Sec. 60.676(b) has been deleted.
However, the information requested under Sec. 60.676(a) is still
required to be reported to EPA Regional Offices, and State or local
agencies if they have received NSPS delegation authority.
b. The EPA has also reviewed the General Provisions requirement
(Sec. 60.4(a)) for owners and operators of affected facilities to send
copies of all requests, reports, applications, submittals and other
communications to the appropriate EPA Regional Office in cases where
the State has been delegated authority to enforce the NSPS. In these
cases, some EPA Regional Offices will consider waiver of this
requirement for affected facilities subject to this subpart on a plant-
by-plant basis. The method for accomplishing this reporting reduction
on a plant-by-plant basis would be through the Operating Permit for the
individual plant. Thus, some plants have an option available to them
for further reporting reductions.
c. The General Provisions (Sec. 60.7(a)(2)) also require a
notification of the anticipated date of initial startup for new
affected facilities. After reviewing this requirement, the EPA has
determined that this notification can be waived for owners and
operators of affected facilities subject to this NSPS without affecting
the enforcement of this regulation. Due to the large number of plants
being regulated under this regulation, the deletion of this reporting
requirement under this subpart is being made for purposes of
streamlining and further reduction of the reporting burden on both
large and small plant owners or operators.
d. The General Provisions [section 60.7(a)(3)] require a
notification of the actual date of initial startup for each affected
facility within the plant. The NSA and its member companies requested
the EPA to review this requirement as it pertains to owners and
operators of the nonmetallic minerals processing NSPS. They cited the
examples of the addition of several new affected facilities being added
to a production line or the addition of a whole new production line,
and they requested whether, for notification purposes only, a single
notification of the actual date of initial startup could be submitted
for all of these affected facilities, in lieu of several separate
notifications.
After a review of this situation, the EPA has determined, for
notification purposes only, that a single notification of the actual
date of initial startup of a combination of affected facilities in a
production line that begin initial startup simultaneously would be
acceptable. The notification must include a description of each
affected facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number of the
equipment, if available, for future compliance purposes. A single
notification for multiple affected facilities starting production at
the same time would have no adverse impact on enforcement of the
standards. Therefore, in an effort to further reduce the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of this regulation, section 60.676 has been
revised to reflect this allowance.
This revision would also benefit the EPA and State and local
agencies in terms of reducing staff review time for numerous single
notifications of the actual date of initial startup.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed revisions to the standards in accordance with Section
307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed revisions should contact the EPA (see
ADDRESSES). If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond
to the presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who
may wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes
each. Any member of the public may file a written statement on or
before August 26, 1996. Written statements should be addressed to the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES) and
refer to Docket No. A-95-46. Written statements and supporting
information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral
statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public
hearing, if held. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public
inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).
B. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed rulemaking.
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested
parties to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve as the official
record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review
materials (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act)).
C. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
1. Administrator Listing--Under Section 111 of the Act,
establishment of standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral
processing plants was preceded by the Administrator's determination (40
CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, dated August 21, 1979) that these sources
contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
2. External Participation--In accordance with section 117 of the
Act, publication of the proposed revisions to the NSPS was preceded by
consultation with a national trade association composed of 570 member
companies and several States. The Administrator welcomes comments on
today's proposed revisions to the NSPS.
3. Economic Impact Assessment--Section 317 of the Act requires the
Administrator to prepare an economic impact assessment for any new
source standard of performance promulgated under Section 111(b) of the
Act. Today's proposed rulemaking is for clarifications and minor
revisions to the applicability, definitions, test methods and
procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping sections of the regulation.
No additional controls or other costs are being incurred as a result of
these revisions. The proposed revisions would result in a cost savings
for the industry (reduction of certain testing and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements) and the EPA and State/Local agencies (reduction
in staff time needed to review fewer reports). Therefore, no economic
impact assessment for the proposed revisions to the standards was
conducted.
D. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
1. Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an ``information collection request'' (ICR) document has been
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. ________) to reflect the revised/reduced
information requirements of the proposed revised regulation and a copy
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division
(2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Under the existing NSPS, the industry recordkeeping and reporting
burden and costs for an owner or operator of a new
[[Page 33419]]
nonmetallic mineral processing plant was estimated at 820 hours and
$27,100 for the first year of operation. The vast majority of the
estimated hours (670) were attributed to required Method 5 and Method 9
performance testing of affected facilities. Under the proposed revised
NSPS, a 1-hour Method 9 test is allowed in lieu of the Method 5 test
for individual, enclosed storage bins. In addition, the duration of
Method 9 tests for most fugitive emission sources and individual,
enclosed storage bin emission sources has been reduced from 3 hours to
1 hour. Also, plant owners or operators are allowed to submit one
notification of actual startup for several affected facilities in a
production line that begin operation the same day, in lieu of multiple
notifications for each affected facility. The proposed revised NSPS is
also waiving the General Provisions requirement to submit a
notification of anticipated startup for each affected facility.
Therefore, the revised annual estimated industry recordkeeping and
reporting burden and costs for an owner or operator of a new
nonmetallic mineral processing plant are 480 hours and $15,800, the
majority of which is due to performance testing. This represents an
estimated reduction in the average emission testing, recordkeeping and
reporting burden of 340 hours and $11,300 for a new plant in the first
year. This collection of information is estimated to have an average
annual government recordkeeping and reporting burden of 320 hours over
the first 3 years. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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 EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR ch. 15.
Comments are requested on the reductions discussed in this
preamble. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. The final rule will respond to any public comments on
the reduced information collection requirements contained in this
proposal.
2. Executive Order 12866 Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
EPA must determine whether the proposed regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of this Executive Order to
prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Order defines
``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety in State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the proposed revisions to the standards are ``not
significant'' because none of the above criteria are triggered by the
proposed revisions. The proposed revisions would decrease the cost of
complying with the revised standards.
3. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement including a cost-benefit
analysis for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
The EPA has determined that today's action, which proposes
revisions and clarifications to the existing regulation, decreases the
cost of compliance with this proposed revised regulation. Therefore,
the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
proposed action.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to the impact
of regulations on small entities, which are small businesses, small
organizations, and small governments. The major purpose of the RFA is
to keep paperwork and regulatory requirements from getting out of
proportion to the scale of the entities being regulated, without
compromising the objectives of, in this case, the Act.
If a regulation is likely to have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the EPA may give special
consideration to those small entities when analyzing regulatory
alternatives and drafting the regulation. The impact of this regulation
upon small businesses was analyzed as part of the economic impact
analysis performed for the proposed standards for the nonmetallic
minerals processing plants (48 FR 39566, August 31, 1983). As a result
of this analysis, plants operating at small capacities were exempted
from the requirements of the standards. Today's proposed revisions to
the standards do not affect these exempted small plants; that is, they
continue to be exempted from the standards. In addition, the main
thrust of the proposed revisions to the standards is a reduction of the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of
all affected facilities.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the impact of the
proposed rule is not significant.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nonmetallic
mineral processing plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Intergovernmental relations.
Dated: June 17, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 40
CFR part 60, subpart OOO as follows:
[[Page 33420]]
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429 and 7601.
2. It is proposed to amend 60.670 by revising paragraphs (a) and
(d)(2), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.670 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, the provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities in fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral processing
plants: each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket
elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, enclosed truck
or railcar loading station. All facilities located in underground mines
are exempted from the provisions of this subpart. Except as required in
Sec. 60.676(g), the provisions of this subpart do not apply to wet
screening operations and associated conveyors downstream of the wet
screening operation in the production line up to, but not including,
the next crusher, grinding mill, or dry screening operation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) An owner or operator complying with this paragraph shall submit
the information required in Sec. 60.676(a).
* * * * *
(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of
affected facilities subject to this subpart.
2a. It is proposed to add Table 1 to Subpart OOO to read as
follows:
Table 1.--Applicability of Subpart A to Subpart OOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Subpart A reference subpart OOO? Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.1 Applicability........... Yes.
60.2 Definitions............. Yes.
60.3 Units and abbreviations. Yes.
60.4 Address--(a)............ Yes.
(b)..................... Yes.
60.5 Deter. of construction Yes.
or modification.
60.6 Review of plans......... Yes.
60.7 Notification and Yes Except in (a)(2),
recordkeeping. report of
anticipated date of
initial startup is
not required
[60.676(g)].
60.8 Performance tests....... Yes. Except in (d), after
30 days notice for
an initially
scheduled perf.
test, any
rescheduled perf.
test requires 7 days
notice, not 30 days
[60.675(g)].
60.9 Availability of Yes.
information.
60.10 State authority........ Yes.
60.11 Compliance with Yes Except in (b), under
standards and maintenance certain conditions
requirements. [sec. 60.675 (c)(4)
and (c)(5)], Method
9 observation may be
reduced from 3 hrs.
to 1 hr.
60.12 Circumvention.......... Yes.
60.13 Monitoring requirements Yes.
60.14 Modification........... Yes.
60.15 Reconstruction......... Yes.
60.16 Priority list.......... Yes.
60.17 Incorporations by Yes.
reference.
60.18 General control device No Flares will not be
requirements. used to comply with
the emission limits.
60.19 General notification Yes.
and reporting requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is proposed to amend Sec. 60.671 by adding in alphabetical
order the definition of Wet screening operation to read as follows:
Sec. 60.671 Definitions.
* * * * *
Wet screening operation means a screening facility designed and
operated at all times to remove unwanted material from the product by a
washing process whereby the product is completely saturated with water.
* * * * *
4. It is proposed to amend Sec. 60.672 by removing the word ``or''
after paragraph (a)(1), by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and by
adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.672 Standard for particulate matter.
(a) * * *
(1) Contain particulate matter in excess of 0.05 g/dscm.
(2) * * *
(b) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under
Sec. 60.11, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
transfer point on belt conveyors or from any other affected facility
any fugitive emissions which exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity,
except as provided in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this
section.
(c) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under
Sec. 60.11, no owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any crusher, at which a capture system is not used,
fugitive emissions which exhibit greater than 15 percent opacity.
* * * * *
(f) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under
Sec. 60.11, no owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any baghouse that only
[[Page 33421]]
controls emissions from an individual enclosed storage bin, stack
emissions which exhibit greater than 7 percent opacity.
(g) Owners or operators of multiple storage bins with combined
stack emissions shall comply with the emission limits in paragraph (a)
of this section.
5. It is proposed to amend Sec. 60.675 by revising paragraph (d)
and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.675 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(d) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions
standard for any affected facility described under Sec. 60.672(b) and
where there are no individual readings greater than 10% opacity and
where there are no more than 3 readings of 10% opacity for the first
hour of testing of this affected facility and the opacity of stack
emissions from any baghouse that only controls emissions from an
individual, enclosed storage bin under Sec. 60.672(f), using Method 9,
the duration of the Method 9 observations shall be 1 hour (10 6-minute
averages).
* * * * *
(g) If, after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled performance
test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in
conducting any rescheduled performance test required in this section,
the owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit to the
Administrator at least 7 days prior notice of any rescheduled
performance test.
6. Section 60.676 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b), revising paragraph (f), redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph
(j) and revising newly designated (j), and adding new paragraphs (g),
(h), and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(b) [reserved]
* * * * *
(f) The owner or operator of any affected facility shall submit
written reports of the results of all performance tests conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in Sec. 60.672,
including reports of opacity observations made using Method 9 to
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.672 (b), (c), and (f), and reports
of observations using Method 22 to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 60.672(e).
(g) The owner or operator of any wet screening operation and
associated conveyor shall keep a record describing the location of
these operations and shall submit an initial report describing the
location of these operations within 30 days. If, subsequent to the
initial report, any screening operation ceases to operate as wet
screening, the owner or operator shall submit a report of this change
and shall immediately comply with all of the requirements of the
regulation for an affected facility. These reports shall be submitted
within 30 days following such change.
(h) The Subpart A requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) for
notification of the anticipated date of initial startup of an affected
facility shall be waived for owners or operators of affected facilities
regulated under this subpart.
(i) A notification of the actual date of initial startup of each
affected facility shall be submitted to the Administrator. For a
combination of affected facilities in a production line that begin
actual initial startup on the same day, a single notification of
startup may be submitted by the owner or operator to the Administrator.
The notification shall be postmarked within 15 days after such date and
shall include a description of each affected facility, equipment
manufacturer, and serial number of the equipment, if available.
(j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under
section 111 of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In
that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of
the obligation to comply with the reporting requirements of this
section, provided that they comply with requirements established by the
State.
[FR Doc. 96-16012 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
