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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5836-2]

RIN 2060-AG33

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Standards of

Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates revisions and clarifications to

several provisions of the standards of performance for nonmetallic

mineral processing plants, which were proposed in the Federal Register

on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33415). This action presents the final

revisions to the applicability, definitions, test methods and

procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the

standards, and the basis for those revisions. The affected industries

and numerical emission limits remain unchanged.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 1997. See the Supplementary Information section

concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-95-46, containing information

considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated revisions to

the new source performance standards (NSPS) is available for public

inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 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 docket materials.

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

promulgated rule are new, modified, or reconstructed affected

facilities in nonmetallic mineral processing plants that process any of

the 18 nonmetallic minerals listed in Table 1.

[[Page 31352]]

Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities

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

Entity category Description

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

Industrial............................ 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

processing plants.

Federal............................... Same as above

Government............................

State/Local/.......................... Same as above

Tribal................................

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

The provisions of this final rule apply to the following affected

facilities at 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. To determine whether your facility is regulated by

this final action, you should 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.

Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the final

rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the revised requirements that are the subject of today's notice

may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by

the EPA to enforce these requirements.

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background and Public Participation

II. Comments and Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS

A. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS

B. Responses to Comments

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements

C. Office of Management and Budget Reviews

1. Paperwork Reduction Act

2. Executive Order 12866

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

I. Background and Public Participation

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 reduction, considering

costs, nonair quality health, and environmental and energy impacts.

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, the 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, the NSA

requested that several of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements

be reduced or eliminated.

Before proposal of the amendments to the NSPS, meetings were held

with representatives of several companies regulated under the NSPS for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants and the NSA to discuss potential

changes to the NSPS (subpart OOO). The EPA also received input from

representatives of State and local environmental agencies before the

proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register.

The amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants were proposed on June 27, 1996

(61 FR 33415). The public comment period ended on August 26, 1996.

Industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and environmental

groups had the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions and to

provide additional information during the public comment period that

followed proposal. A public hearing was offered at proposal to provide

interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation of data,

views, or arguments concerning the proposed amended rule. However, no

one requested a hearing and, therefore, no hearing was held. Forty-

three comment letters were received. The commenters included industry,

one national and several State trade associations, several State

regulatory agencies, and one environmental consultant. These comments

were considered and, today's final amended rule reflects consideration

of these comments. The public comments that were received along with

EPA's responses to the comments on the proposed amended rule are

summarized in this preamble. The summary of comments and responses

serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the final

amended rule between proposal and promulgation. The following section

discusses changes made as a result of public comments on the proposed

amendments to the NSPS. A more detailed discussion of comments and

responses is contained in the docket (Docket No. A-95-46; Item V-C-1.)

II. Comments and Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS

A. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS

There was general support for the amendments which reduced or

eliminated several of the paperwork requirements on the industry,

greatly reduced the costs of emission testing without sacrificing air

quality, provided a table specifying the applicability of subpart A

(General Provisions for part 60) to subpart OOO affected facilities,

and clarified that facilities located in underground mines are not

subject to the NSPS. The commenters requested further clarification of

the applicability of the NSPS to certain operations, additional

reductions in the Method 9 test duration for certain affected

facilities, and further reductions in the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

The following is a summary of the changes made to the proposed

revisions as a result of EPA's evaluation of the public comments. Some

of these changes are clarifications of EPA's original intent. The

rationale for these changes is discussed in section II.B.

1. Section 60.670, Applicability and designation of affected

facility, is revised:

(a) To clarify the original intent of the NSPS that stand-alone

screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding mills are

not subject to the NSPS;

(b) To clarify the original intent of the NSPS that crushers and

grinding mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of

nonmetallic minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement, and

subsequent affected facilities in the production line up to, but not

including, the first storage silo or bin are subject to the NSPS; and

(c) To remove the exemption of wet screening and associated belt

conveyors from all provisions of this subpart

[[Page 31353]]

except reporting and recordkeeping because these sources are subject to

all provisions of this subpart except for Method 9 opacity tests.

2. Section 60.671, Definitions, is revised to add a definition of

wet mining operation and to make minor changes in the proposed

definition of wet screening operation.

3. Section 60.672, Standard for particulate matter, is revised to

require no visible emissions from

(a) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,

bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in the production line that

process saturated materials up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or

storage bin in the production line;

(b) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in

the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process

saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage

bin in the production line.

4. Section 60.675, Test methods and procedures, is revised:

(a) To exempt from the initial requirement in Sec. 60.11 for Method

9 emission testing;

(i) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,

bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in the production line that

process saturated materials up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or

storage bin in the production line;

(ii) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in

the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process

saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage

bin in the production line.

(b) To correct typographical error in paragraph (b).

(c) To allow crushers without emission capture systems to reduce

the duration of Method 9 observations of fugitive emissions for

compliance from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-

minute averages) if there are no individual readings greater than 15

percent opacity and there are no more than 3 readings of 15 percent for

the first 1-hour period.

(d) To add wording to clarify that if qualifying conditions are not

met by affected facilities subject to applicable fugitive emission

limits, then 3 hours, rather than 1 hour, of Method 9 testing would be

required to determine compliance.

5. Section 60.676, Reporting and recordkeeping, is revised:

(a) To require that both the address of the home office and the

current address/location of the portable aggregate plant be included in

the notification of the actual date of initial startup;

(b) To require the reporting within 30 days of any affected

facility that changes the saturated or unsaturated nature of the

material being processed. The affected facility is then subject to the

provisions of the standard applicable to the type of material being

processed.

B. Responses to Comments

Several commenters remarked that the proposed changes to the rule

were an important milestone in EPA's partnering efforts with the

regulated community to help reduce the administrative burden of subpart

OOO while maintaining protection of the health and welfare of the

general public.

The comments, the issues they address, and the EPA's responses to

comments are presented in the following sections according to the

following topics: (1) Applicability; (2) Definitions; (3) Standard for

Particulate Matter; (4) Test Methods and Procedures; and (5) Reporting

and Recordkeeping.

1. Applicability

(a) Comment. One commenter disagreed with the Agency's

clarification to exempt nonmetallic mineral processing facilities

located in underground mines from subpart OOO.

Response. Underground mining operations will continue to be

exempted from this regulation. As stated in the preamble to the

proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants, this regulation does not apply

to facilities located in underground mines because 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

regulation. In addition, a response to a comment in the background

information document for the original promulgated standards (EPA-450/3-

83-001b, April 1985, page 2-44) stated specifically that mining

operations are not covered under the proposed or final standards for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants.

(b) Comment. Four commenters were concerned whether ``wet mining

operations'' and subsequent processing of the mineral material should

be subject to this NSPS. Two of these commenters requested EPA to

include wet dredging operations/equipment in the definition of ``wet

screening operation'' to exempt those operations from all NSPS

requirements except for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

One of the two commenters suggested that the equipment exemption

include all screening, crushing and transfer operations (conveyors)

associated with dredging operations up to, but not including, the next

crusher, grinding mill or dry screening operation in the production

line of the plant. According to the commenter, fugitive dust emissions

from wet dredging operations have never been recorded during any site

visit by this State agency.

One of the previously mentioned commenters requested that overland

conveyor systems that are transporting sand and gravel that has been

mined below the water table be exempted from testing requirements. An

alternative performance testing program for these field conveyor

systems previously approved by an EPA Regional Office was recommended.

This alternative testing program consisted of reducing the Method 9

testing from 3 hours to 1 hour; conducting the Method 9 test at the

first and last transfer points in a series of transfer points; and

waiving the performance test for all intermediate transfer points if no

visible emissions are observed at the first and last transfer points.

Another commenter requested an exemption from emission testing

requirements or total exemption for facilities, such as sand and

gravel, dredge, and marine limestone, that mine and process a ``wet''

product with an inherent natural moisture content that does not have

the potential to create emissions. This commenter stated that many

State agencies already offer testing exemptions for these types of

facilities.

Another commenter suggested adding a definition of ``wet mining

operation'' in the regulation and revising the rule to exempt

operations at mining facilities that extract limestone, dolomite or

sand and gravel from deposits below the water table and saturated with

water except for reporting requirements.

Response. The EPA has considered these comments and agrees that

there is no potential for emissions from belt conveyors transporting

nonmetallic minerals that are saturated with water. Also, there is no

potential for emissions from other processes such as screens and bucket

elevators that handle nonmetallic minerals that are saturated with

water. Therefore, belt conveyors, screening operations and bucket

elevators that process materials saturated with water from wet mining

operations up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or stockpile in the

production line are exempted from the initial Method 9 performance

testing under Sec. 60.11 but are required to have no visible emissions

from these sources.

[[Page 31354]]

The no visible emission standard would allow plant and enforcement

officials to verify that the materials being processed were indeed

saturated with water.

If an affected facility that processes saturated material later

processes unsaturated material, a report of this change shall be sent

to EPA within 30 days of this change. Also, this affected facility

becomes subject to the Method 9 opacity test requirements of this

subpart and the 10 percent opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b).

As recommended by the last mentioned commenter, a definition of

``Wet mining operation'' has been added to ``Definitions'' in

Sec. 60.671 to identify which affected facilities are exempt from

Method 9 emission testing. To assure no emissions are possible, the

definition will state that the nonmetallic mineral must be saturated.

Crushers reduce the size of the process material and in so doing

increase the surface area of the material being processed. This crushed

material then has new surfaces which are not saturated and have the

potential to create air emissions. Therefore, crushers at dredging

operations are not exempt.

(c) Comment. A commenter requested clarification whether the NSPS

applies to stand-alone screening operations at plants without any

crushers.

Response. The commenter is correct that EPA did not intend to

regulate stand-alone screening operations at plants that have no

crushers. Subpart OOO affected facilities begin with the initial

crushing or grinding operation at the plant. Plants that do not employ

crushing or grinding, by definition, are not considered nonmetallic

mineral processing plants and thus are not subject to subpart OOO.

(d) Comment. One commenter supported the proposed exemption of wet

screening operations and associated conveyors and recommended that the

wet screening exemption be expanded to include all pieces of equipment

where the use of water is necessary to the operation of the process,

such as pugmills. Another commenter believed that the term ``dry'' in

the definition of wet screening operation was confusing because a

screen operated downstream from a wash screen will handle material that

is saturated by the wash process. Also, another commenter recommended

that the wet screening operations and associated downstream conveyors

exemption be expanded to include loadout bins and other wet process

operations.

Response. Equipment other than crushers and grinding mills where

the use of water may be necessary to the operation, such as pugmills

used for reblending of materials at the end of the process, are not

affected facilities and therefore not subject to subpart OOO.

Therefore, no further change has been made to expand the wet screening

exemption as requested by the first-mentioned commenter.

Screening is the process by which material is separated according

to size. Screening may be performed either wet or dry. Wet screening

where the product is saturated with water removes material from the

product, such as silt, clay, grit, etc., or separates marketable fines

by a washing process and there is no potential for air emissions.

Wet screening operations, which use a washing process, and

subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors

up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or storage bin are also exempt

from Method 9 initial performance tests per Sec. 60.11 and are required

to meet a no visible emissions standard. To assure there is no

potential for emissions from these operations following the wet

screens, the material that is being processed is required to be

saturated. The no visible emission standard is a means for both plant

and enforcement personnel to verify that the material being processed

is indeed saturated.

If an affected facility processes saturated material later

processes unsaturated material, a report of this change shall be sent

to EPA within 30 days of this change. Also, this affected facility

becomes subject to the Method 9 opacity test requirements of this

subpart and the opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b).

(e) Comment. A commenter requested clarification as to whether

recycled asphalt operations are covered under the NSPS. The commenter

attached a memo from an EPA Region which stated that during a visit to

a recycled asphalt facility, nonmetallic minerals of two to three

inches within the recycled asphalt were being crushed to less than half

an inch. The Region stated if the nonmetallic mineral is crushed or

ground by a recycled asphalt crusher, the crusher would be subject to

this NSPS.

Response. The EPA concurs with this determination as this is the

intent of the rule. A new, modified or reconstructed asphalt crusher or

grinding mill that reduces the size of a nonmetallic mineral embedded

in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected facilities up to,

but not including, the storage silo or bin at a hot mix asphalt

facility are subject to subpart OOO. A sentence has been added to

Sec. 60.670 Applicability that such a crusher or grinding mill is

subject to this NSPS.

2. Definitions

(a) Comment. Three commenters fully supported the Agency's

exemption of wet screening operations, except for reporting and

recordkeeping from the NSPS, but requested that the definition of ``wet

screening operation'' be revised to remove the term ``completely'' in

the definition because they believe it gives the connotation that the

rock is wet throughout and because the term is subject to various

interpretations by industry and regulatory personnel. In addition, one

commenter requested that the Agency change the term ``unwanted material

to ``fines'' in the definition. Quite often the ``unwanted material,''

or fines, that are washed from the rock surface on a washing screen are

collected and sold as a natural or manufactured sand or other

marketable product. Also, one commenter suggested that the definition

of wet screening operation be changed to a definition of ``wet

process'' to include other wet process operations such as log washers,

classifiers, sand screws, pugmills, belt presses, and dewatering

screens. However, if this change is not made, then he recommended

further defining the terms ``saturated'' and ``unwanted material'' to

avoid numerous interpretation conflicts.

Response. After review and consideration of these comments, the EPA

has decided to make changes in the definition of ``wet screening

operation.'' The term ``completely'' has been deleted from the

definition. ``Saturated'' is defined as ``to soak or load to capacity''

and therefore the term ``completely'' is not necessary to convey the

intent. Also, the revised definition includes the separation of

marketable fines and now more closely describes the types of screening

operations in the wet/wash end of a nonmetallic minerals processing

plant without changing the original intent of the definition. It is not

necessary to define ``unwanted material'' in the definition, which

could include silt, grit, etc., as requested.

``Wet screening operation'' is the appropriate term to be defined,

not ``wet process'' as suggested by one of the commenters. The other

processes cited are not affected facilities and therefore are not

subject to this NSPS. As stated in the preamble to the proposed

amendments, there is no potential for air emissions from either

screening or conveying operations in the wash process.

3. Test Methods and Procedures

(a) Comment. Several commenters maintained that the cost of dual

compliance tests for both the stack

[[Page 31355]]

emission limit and stack opacity standard was prohibitive to the

industry and requested that Method 9 testing be the sole test for

compliance of any affected facility. In addition, another commenter

disagreed with the dual stack emission testing of particulate and

opacity which he believes greatly increases the testing costs with no

data to support the environmental benefits.

Response. This NSPS requires an initial performance test to measure

the concentration of particulate matter in stack emissions for each

affected facility because the EPA has found that facilities with

similar control devices may not have the same emissions characteristics

due to variables in the processes, process operating conditions, and

control system design, installation, and operation. Because of this

variability, performance tests are necessary to demonstrate the

capability of each facility to meet the PM emission limit. The stack

opacity test is used as a continuing compliance tool during any

subsequent inspections by State and local air pollution agency

personnel. During the development of this NSPS, the cost of performance

testing was estimated and found to be reasonable and no new data was

submitted by the commenter.

(b) Comment. Two national trade associations and one State trade

association stated that many nonmetallic mineral producers that use

enclosed aggregate storage bins often have more than one of these bins

ducted to a fabric filter collection system and requested that the NSPS

require only Method 9 testing for single fabric filter systems that

control emissions from more than one enclosed storage bin.

Response. As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments to

the NSPS, Method 5 testing cannot be performed for baghouses that only

control emissions from individual, enclosed storage bins due to very

low air flows from individual, enclosed storage bins. However, if

emissions from multiple storage bins are ducted to a single fabric

collection system, the air flow is high enough for Method 5 testing,

accordingly, the combined emissions are subject to both Method 5 stack

emission testing and Method 9 opacity testing for determining

compliance. This requirement is specified in Sec. 60.672(g).

(c) Comment. A commenter referred to the original proposed rule for

subpart OOO that was published on August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39574), which

stated that ``Performance tests would not be required for fugitive

emission sources.'' Fugitive emissions as defined in that proposal

include emissions from crushers, conveyors, and screens that have no

capture system. According to the commenter, neither the current rule

nor the proposed amended rule for subpart OOO contain language that

would require performance testing immediately after startup for

fugitive emission sources. According to the commenter, Secs. 60.675 (b)

and (c) explain only how to determine compliance for the fugitive

emission limitations, not that performance testing is required. The

State agency requested that the wording, and true intent, of subpart

OOO be clarified so as to explicitly state whether performance testing

for fugitive emissions is required.

Response. The intent of subpart OOO is to require initial

compliance testing for fugitive emissions from applicable affected

facilities. The commenter referred to the statement in the proposed

rule published on August 31, 1983 at page 48 FR 39574. This statement

was in regard to performance tests by Method 5, which are not

applicable to fugitive emission sources. It was not intended to exempt

fugitive emission sources from initial compliance using Method 9 or

Method 22 as appropriate.

Section 60.8 of the General Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 requires

performance testing for affected facilities in each subpart

(regulation) and Sec. 60.11 contains requirements for compliance with

opacity standards. Each subpart specifies the applicable test methods

and any additional test procedures or exemptions specific to the

affected facility being regulated. The test methods and procedures for

affected facilities under subpart OOO, Sec. 60.675, require performance

tests on fugitive emission sources. This is also indicated by the

General Provisions requirements which are included in Table 1 of

Sec. 60.670 in these amendments to this NSPS. This Table has been added

to make clear in the regulation itself the requirements of this NSPS.

(d) Comment. There was total support in the public comments for the

proposed reduction of visible emission testing from 3 hours to 1 hour

(subject to the level of visible emissions observed during the first

hour) for fugitive emission sources. However, one commenter stated that

since crushers without capture systems are allowed 15 percent opacity,

a 3-hour test should not be required if three 10 percent opacity

readings are observed in the first hour. The commenter asserted that a

crusher operating uniformly at 5 percent opacity with several 10

percent puffs or constantly at 10 percent is well within compliance.

Several commenters also strongly believe that affected facilities

should be allowed to demonstrate compliance during the 1-hour test with

the existing opacity limits that are applicable for each affected

facility, i.e., 15 percent for crushers at which a capture system is

not used and 10 percent for other affected facilities as required in

the NSPS.

Response. The proposed revised rule did not change the existing 15

percent opacity limit for crushers without capture systems as

interpreted by several of the commenters, nor did the proposed revised

rule allow the Method 9 test reduction from 3 hours to 1 hour for these

crushers. However, the EPA's review of visible emission data submitted

by a State agency for crushers without capture systems showed that

these crushers generally had no emissions during 1-hour Method 9

observations. The visible emission data was from crushers using wet

suppression and from screens and conveyor transfer points without

capture systems. The test data showed 3 crushers with all Method 9

readings at 0 percent and 1 crusher with a few readings at 5 percent; 1

conveyor (prior to crushing) test showed several readings at 10 percent

and some at 15 percent. Therefore, based on this test data, the Method

9 emission test period for crushers without capture systems is reduced

from 3 hours to 1 hour to demonstrate compliance with the 15 percent

fugitive emissions limit if there are no individual readings greater

than 15 percent opacity and there are no more than 3 readings of 15

percent for the first 1-hour period. If these qualifying conditions are

not met during the first hour, then testing of crushers without capture

systems would be required for 3 hours.

(e) Comment. According to one commenter, the proposed revisions

fail to specify what an inspector or industry personnel must do to

demonstrate compliance if visible emissions are seen using Method 22

outside a building which does not comply with Sec. 60.672(e). The

commenter stated that the inspector must enter the building in these

cases. As an example, the commenter cited an incident that took place

after promulgation of the original rule in which an EPA inspector found

it impossible to read opacity inside a building located at a rock

crushing plant due to the lack of proper visibility. The commenter

stated that in some cases there was no room for an inspector to enter,

much less read the opacity from affected facilities. The commenter also

referred to OSHA rules which define such structures as confined spaces

and caution against exposing personnel to

[[Page 31356]]

such dangers. The commenter recommended that if visible emissions are

seen outside the building and it is unsafe to enter the building then

Method 9 readings should be taken outside the building. The recommended

opacity limit would be the same as allowed under Sec. 60.672 (b) or

(c).

Response. The commenter was concerned that the original rule failed

to address what must be done if the visible emission requirements that

apply to emissions observed outside the building are not met. Section

60.672(e)(standard for particulate matter) clearly states that

compliance is shown by complying with either Sec. 60.672 (a), (b) and

(c) or by complying with Sec. 60.672(e). Also, the requirements are

discussed in the preamble for the final rule published on August 1,

1985; at 50 FR 31333 and 31334. Accordingly, no change is required to

the regulation.

This NSPS is a national standard and it is impossible to prepare a

regulation that addresses every possible situation. This NSPS gives

industry flexibility by giving them the option of complying with

Sec. 60.672(e) or with Sec. 60.672 (a), (b) and (c). Section 60.672(e)

allows no visible emissions from a building except from a vent.

Emission limits from a vent are the same as for any stack emissions;

0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity. Thus, by complying with

Sec. 60.672(e) no one is required to enter the building. Sections

60.672 (a),(b) and (c) limit the stack emissions as mentioned above as

well as setting Method 9 opacity limits for fugitive emissions from

individual affected facilities. If Method 9 limits are set for the

building as suggested by the commenter, there is the potential of

allowing dilution air to be added to general building ventilation.

Also, the Method 9 opacity limits for fugitive emissions as shown in

Secs. 60.672 (b) and (c) are based on emission test data obtained while

observing emissions from individual affected facilities such as

crushers and belt conveyors and not from buildings containing these

affected facilities. Therefore, there will be no change made to the

proposed revisions based on this comment.

(f) Comment. One commenter recommended waiving the Method 9 opacity

compliance testing requirement for screens and conveyor transfer points

subject to this NSPS pursuant to Sec. 60.8(b)(4) of the General

Provisions, subpart A (which waives the requirement for performance

tests because an owner or operator has demonstrated compliance to EPA

by other means). The commenter based this request on more than 80

emissions evaluations performed at nonmetallic mineral processing

plants during the past nine years which demonstrate that these affected

facilities are in compliance with the opacity standard for fugitive

emissions. If a waiver of the initial testing requirement is not

granted, it was suggested that the cut-off point as applied to the

testing requirement for 3 hours of testing be 50 percent of the largest

applicable federally enforceable opacity standard.

A Regional Air Pollution Control Agency provided copies of a number

of actual Method 9 observation sheets that illustrated their experience

of gathering mostly ``zeros'' when conducting the subpart OOO visible

emission readings and offered these as corroboration that the proposed

Method 9 testing reduction from 3 hours to 1 hour, if there is not a

visible emission problem, should be promulgated. The visible emission

data were from crushers using wet suppression and from screens and

conveyor transfer points.

Response. With regard to the first comment, the EPA does not

believe that a waiver of the initial compliance testing requirement for

screening operations and conveyor transfer points is justified under

Sec. 60.8(b)(4). A Method 9 performance test is only required one time

(initially) under the regulation. This performance test is necessary to

demonstrate that the capture system is properly designed, installed and

operated to comply with this NSPS. The emission test data submitted by

the local agency support the use of this performance test. As to the

suggestion that the cut-off point for requiring 3 hours of testing be

50 percent of the largest applicable federally enforceable opacity

standard, the EPA believes that the proposed qualifying conditions in

Sec. 60.675(d) (no reading greater than 10 percent or 3 readings equal

to 10 percent) are more appropriate since these were based on several

emission tests submitted by industry and air pollution control

agencies. No emission test data were submitted by the commenter.

(g) Comment. A commenter requested further consideration of

alternate testing procedures for periodic operations such as enclosed

storage bins and loadout stations. The commenter provided procedures

approved previously by an EPA Regional Office and requested that these

procedures be incorporated into the final rule. The EPA Regional Office

agreed that if a storage tank's baghouse exhaust is in compliance with

this NSPS by using Method 9, Method 5 particulate emission testing

would not be required. Also the EPA Regional Office approved Method 9

testing that was conducted over two or three loading cycles of the

product storage tank in lieu of 3 hours of Method 9 observations. For

truck loadout stations, 30 minutes of visible emission testing were

allowed.

Response. As noted by the commenter, the proposed amended rule,

60.672(f), requires individual, enclosed storage bins to only comply

with the opacity standard. Also, the testing period has been reduced

from three hours to one hour. Section 60.8(b) of the General Provisions

allows the use of alternatives to performance testing based on the

review and approval by EPA of relevant supporting information. The

supporting data and information in requests for alternative testing are

evaluated for approval by EPA on a case-by-case basis. Even though

these alternate testing procedures that reduced the duration of Method

9 testing were approved by EPA under certain conditions for certain

affected facilities, no emission test data were submitted to warrant

incorporating these changes into the final rule for regulating such

affected facilities throughout the entire industry.

4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

(a) Comment. Several commenters were opposed to the requirement

under Sec. 60.4(a) of the General Provisions that all notifications,

reports, etc. be sent in duplicate to both the EPA Regional Office and

one copy to the State regulatory agency, provided the State has been

delegated authority for the NSPS. Also, the commenters recommended that

if the State has been delegated authority for this NSPS, notifications,

reports, etc. should only be sent to the States. According to the

commenters, for those States not delegated NSPS authority,

notifications and correspondence should be sent only to the appropriate

EPA Regional Office.

Response. The submittals of duplicate copies of notifications,

reports, etc. to the EPA Regional Offices and a copy to State agencies

with delegated authority are needed so that both groups can keep track

of this NSPS.

The commenters are correct that if a State has not been delegated

authority; notifications, reports, etc. are required to be sent only to

the appropriate EPA Regional Office.

(b) Comment. One commenter suggested that EPA consider the use of

fax or telephone notifications to States of the date of actual

construction and initial start-up.

Response. On September 11, 1996 (61 FR 47840), revisions to the

General Provisions, subpart A, 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, were

proposed allowing the use of electronic notifications if

[[Page 31357]]

approved by the relevant permitting authority.

(c) Comment. One commenter supported the proposed revision that

allowed a single notification for the actual date of initial startup

for multiple affected facilities that plan to begin initial startup

simultaneously (on the same day), in circumstances where, due to delays

and the time required to install the affected facilities, startup of

every affected facilities does not occur at the same time. Due to these

different startup times, the commenter requested a single notification

of startup for all affected facilities that startup within a 30-day

timeframe.

Response. If a 30-day window were allowed, sufficient prior

notification to the State or local agencies for the first affected

facilities that commence operations would not be provided. Companies

that choose to submit a single notification of initial startup for

multiple affected facilities must do appropriate planning to avoid such

simultaneous equipment installation delays. If such equipment

installation delays cannot be avoided, then a notification of initial

startup for each affected facility is required. Accordingly, a change

to accommodate this request is not appropriate.

(d) Comment. One commenter requested that the Agency eliminate the

notification in subpart A, General Provisions, Sec. 60.7(a)(1), of the

date of when construction commences of an affected facility (postmarked

no later than 30 days after construction commences) because the company

did not believe it served any useful purpose.

Response. The requirement under the General Provisions,

Sec. 60.7(a)(1), for an owner or operator to notify the EPA or State

agencies of the date of construction of an affected facility is

necessary for tracking purposes and enforcement. The EPA or State

agencies enforcing the standards have to track, or keep records of, new

equipment at both new plants and capacity expansions at existing

plants. Administrative reporting and recordkeeping requirements for

these standards are similar to those for other NSPS.

(e) Comment. One commenter suggested that under Sec. 60.676(i), the

current address/location be included in the notification of the actual

date of initial startup of each affected facility. Many aggregate

processing plants are portable, and are routinely moved from place-to-

place. In the past, this has led to confusion on where the plant is

located and where the visible emission observations are going to take

place. Currently, portable aggregate processing plants in the

particular State retain the identification address from the owner/

operator's business headquarters. When the portable plant is relocated,

it is still identified with that home office address even though it is

actually located elsewhere.

Response. The EPA agrees that, in the case of portable plants that

are routinely moved from place to place, the current address/location

should be included in the notification of the actual date of initial

startup of such portable plants. Therefore, Sec. 60.676(i) of the final

amended rule has been revised to require both the home office address

and the current address/location of the portable plant.

(f) Comment. One aggregate company requested 14 days lead time, in

lieu of 30 days for notifications of relocation of portable plants and

other notifications such as emission testing and date of construction

because portable plants have trouble anticipating the new location 30

days in advance.

Response. Notifications of relocations of portable plants are a

requirement of individual State and local agencies. For notifications

of emission testing, these agencies need adequate notice so that they

can observe opacity and emission testing. Personnel from these agencies

have stated they need 30 days prior notice to adequately plan to attend

opacity and emission testing. The requirements for other notifications

have decreased. The notification requirement of the actual date of

initial startup under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) is already 15 days and the

anticipated date of initial startup requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(2)

has already been waived under subpart OOO. Therefore, no additional

changes in notification lead times have been made for portable plants.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the development of this final rulemaking. The

docket is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the

rulemaking process. 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)).

B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements

1. The effective date of this revised regulation is June 9, 1997.

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA provides that standards of performance

or revisions thereof become effective upon promulgation and apply to

affected facilities of which the construction or modification was

commenced after the date of proposal, June 27, 1996.

2. 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.

3. External Participation--In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of the final revisions to the NSPS was preceded by

consultation with a national trade association composed of 570 member

companies and several States.

4. 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 final amended rule 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 final amended rule 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 or final revisions to the rule was

conducted.

C. 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. 1084.05) to reflect the revised/reduced

information requirements of the final revised regulation and a copy may

be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division

(2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

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 31358]]

nonmetallic mineral processing plant were estimated at 820 hours and

$27,060 for the first year of operation. The vast majority of the

estimated hours (670) was attributed to required Method 5 and Method 9

performance testing of affected facilities. Under the final 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 fugitive emission sources has been reduced from 3

hours to 1 hour if qualifying conditions are met as discussed in

Section II.3.3.d. 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 final 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 $16,000, the

majority of which is due to performance testing. This represents an

estimated reduction in the average annual recordkeeping and reporting

burden of 340 hours and $11,000 per plant. 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 chapter 15.

2. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the

EPA must determine whether the final 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 final revisions to the NSPS are ``not significant''

because none of the above criteria are triggered by the final

revisions. The final amended rule would decrease the cost of complying

with the revised NSPS.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final standards that include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, of, in the aggregate, $100 million or more. Under

section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the standard and

is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA

to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the standards.

The EPA has determined that today's action, which promulgates

revisions and clarifications to the existing regulation, decreases the

cost of compliance with this final revised regulation. Also, the final

revised regulation does not contain any requirements that apply to

State, local or tribal governments. Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this final 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 Clean Air 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 final 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 final revisions to the standards is a reduction of the

reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of

all affected facilities.

Thus, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA

has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act

(APA), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.

This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 31359]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nonmetallic mineral processing

plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 30, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60, subpart

OOO is amended to read as follows:

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, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,

7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

2. Section 60.670 is amended 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)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), and (d)

of this section, the provisions of this subpart are applicable to the

following affected facilities in fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral

processing plants: each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation,

bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin,

enclosed truck or railcar loading station. Also, crushers and grinding

mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of nonmetallic

minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected

facilities up to, but not including, the first storage silo or bin are

subject to the provisions of this subpart.

(2) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to the following

operations: All facilities located in underground mines; and stand-

alone screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding

mills.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) An owner or operator complying with paragraph (d)(1) of this

section shall submit the information required in Sec. 60.676(a).

* * * * *

(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A

of this Part 60 that apply and those that do not apply to owners and

operators of affected facilities subject to this subpart.

Table 1.--Applicability of Subpart A To Subpart OOO

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

Subpart A reference Applies to 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, Determination of construction Yes........................

or modification.

60.6, Review of plans.............. Yes........................

60.7, Notification and Yes........................ Except in (a)(2) report of anticipated date of

recordkeeping. initial startup is not required (Sec.

60.676(h)).

60.8, Performance tests............ Yes........................ Except in (d), after 30 days notice for an

initially scheduled performance test, any

rescheduled performance test requires 7 days

notice, not 30 days (Sec. 60.675(g)).

60.9, Availability of information.. Yes........................

60.10, State authority............. Yes........................

60.11, Compliance with standards Yes........................ Except in (b) under certain conditions (Secs.

and maintenance requirements. 60.675 (c)(3) and (c)(4)), Method 9

observation may be reduced from 3 hours to 1

hour. Some affected facilities exempted from

Method 9 tests (Sec. 60.675(h)).

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 reference. Yes........................

60.18, General control device...... No......................... Flares will not be used to comply with the

emission limits.

60.19, General notification and Yes........................

reporting requirements.

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

3. Section 60.671 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the

definitions of Wet mining operation and Wet screening operation to read

as follows:

Sec. 60.671 Definitions.

* * * * *

Wet mining operation means a mining or dredging operation designed

and operated to extract any nonmetallic mineral regulated under this

subpart from deposits existing at or below the water table, where the

nonmetallic mineral is saturated with water.

Wet screening operation means a screening operation at a

nonmetallic mineral processing plant which removes unwanted material or

which separates marketable fines from the product by a washing process

which is designed and operated at all times such that the product is

saturated with water.

* * * * *

4. Section 60.672 is amended by removing the word ``or'' and adding

the word ``and'' after paragraph (a)(1); by revising paragraphs (b) and

(c); and by adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.672 Standard for particulate matter.

* * * * *

(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 of this part, no owner or operator subject to the provisions

of this

[[Page 31360]]

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), and (e) 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 of this part, 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 of this part, no owner or operator shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from any baghouse that controls

emissions from only 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)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(h) 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, no owner or operator

shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any visible emissions

from:

(1) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,

bucket elevators, and belt conveyors that process saturated material in

the production line up to the next crusher, grinding mill or storage

bin.

(2) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in

the production line downstream of wet mining operations, where such

screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors process

saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage

bin in the production line.

5. Section 60.675 is amended by revising paragraph (b),

introductory text, redesignating paragraphs (c) introductory text,

(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(1)(i), (ii), and

(iii) and adding new paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (g), and (h) to

read as follows:

Sec. 60.675 Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the

particulate matter standards in Sec. 60.672(a) as follows:

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) In determining compliance with the opacity of stack emissions

from any baghouse that controls emissions only from an individual

enclosed storage bin under Sec. 60.672(f) of this subpart, using Method

9, the duration of the Method 9 observations shall be 1 hour (ten 6-

minute averages).

(3) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions

standard for any affected facility described under Sec. 60.672(b) of

this subpart, the duration of the Method 9 observations may be reduced

from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-minute

averages) only if the following conditions apply:

(i) There are no individual readings greater than 10 percent

opacity; and

(ii) There are no more than 3 readings of 10 percent for the 1-hour

period.

(4) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions

standard for any crusher at which a capture system is not used as

described under Sec. 60.672(c) of this subpart, the duration of the

Method 9 observations may be reduced from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute

averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-minute averages) only if the following

conditions apply:

(i) There are no individual readings greater than 15 percent

opacity; and

(ii) There are no more than 3 readings of 15 percent for the 1-hour

period.

* * * * *

(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 a notice to

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to any rescheduled performance

test.

(h) Initial Method 9 performance tests under Sec. 60.11 of this

part and Sec. 60.675 of this subpart are not required for:

(1) wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,

bucket elevators, and belt conveyors that process saturated material in

the production line up to, but not including the next crusher, grinding

mill or storage bin.

(2) screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in

the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process

saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage

bin in the production line.

6. Section 60.676 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(b); revising paragraph (f); revising and redesignating paragraph (g)

as paragraph (j); and adding new paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) to read as

follows:

Sec. 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.

* * * * *

(b) [Removed and 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 of

this subpart, 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 screening operation, bucket

elevator, or belt conveyor that processes saturated material and is

subject to Sec. 60.672(h) and subsequently processes unsaturated

materials, shall submit a report of this change within 30 days

following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or

belt conveyor is then subject to the 10 percent opacity limit in

Sec. 60.672(b) and the emission test requirements of Sec. 60.11 and

this subpart. Likewise a screening operation, bucket elevator, or belt

conveyor that processes unsaturated material but subsequently processes

saturated material shall submit a report of this change within 30 days

following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or

belt conveyor is then subject to the no visible emission limit in

Sec. 60.672(h).

(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.

(1) For a combination of affected facilities in a production line

that begin actual initial startup on the same day, a single

notification of startup may be submitted by the owner or operator to

the Administrator. The notification shall be postmarked within 15 days

after such date and shall include a description of each affected

facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number of the equipment,

if available.

[[Page 31361]]

(2) For portable aggregate processing plants, the notification of

the actual date of initial startup shall include both the home office

and the current address or location of the portable plant.

(j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and

unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under

section 111(c) 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. 97-14856 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P