Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; Amendments

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