Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 39579
* * * * * new compliance option, revise emission www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

[FR Doc. 06–6125 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
limitations, reduce the frequency of the Air & Radiation Docket, Docket ID
repeat performance tests for certain No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0083, EPA/
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
emission units, add corrective action DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
requirements, and clarify monitoring, Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION recordkeeping, and reporting DC. The Public Reading Room is open
AGENCY requirements. from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is through Friday, excluding legal
40 CFR Part 63 effective on July 13, 2006. holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0083; FRL–8196–6] ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
and the telephone number for the Air
docket for this action under Docket ID Docket is (202) 566–1742.
RIN 2060–AE48 No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0083. All
documents in the docket are listed on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
National Emission Standards for Phil Mulrine, Office of Air Quality
the http://www.regulations.gov Web
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
site. Although listed in the index, some
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities and Programs Division, Metals and
information is not publicly available,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection e.g., confidential business information Minerals Group (D243–02), Research
Agency (EPA). or other information whose disclosure is Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
restricted by statute. Certain other telephone number: (919) 541–5289, fax
ACTION: Final rule.
material, such as copyrighted material, number: (919) 541–3207, e-mail address:
SUMMARY: This action amends the is not placed on the Internet and will be mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
national emission standards for publicly available only in hard copy SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for form. Publicly available docket Regulated Entities. The regulated
integrated iron and steel manufacturing materials are available either categories and entities affected by the
facilities. The final amendments add a electronically through http:// NESHAP include:
NAICS Examples of regulated

Category code 1 entities
Industry ....................................................... 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic
oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops.
Federal government ................................... .................... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government ...................... .................... Not affected.
1 North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be judicial review of the final rule G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide amendments is available only by filing H. Applicability of MACT Standards
for readers regarding entities likely to be a petition for review in the U.S. Court I. Subsequent Performance Tests for
affected by this action. To determine of Appeals for the District of Columbia Baghouses
J. Opacity Observations for Sinter Cooler
whether your facility is be regulated by Circuit by September 11, 2006. Under K. Compliance Date
this action, you should examine the section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7781 objection to the final rule amendments A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
of subpart FFFFF (NESHAP for that was raised with reasonable Planning and Review
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing specificity during the period for public B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Facilities). If you have any questions comment can be raised during judicial C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
regarding the applicability of this action review. Moreover, under section D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
to a particular entity, consult either the 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
air permit authority for the entity or established by the final rule F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
your EPA regional representative as amendments may not be challenged Governments
listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A separately in any civil or criminal G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
(General Provisions). proceedings brought by EPA to enforce Children From Environmental Health
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition these requirements. and Safety Risks
to being available in the docket, an Organization of This Document. The H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
electronic copy of today’s final action information presented in this preamble Concerning Regulations That
will also be available on the Worldwide is organized as follows: Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Web through the Technology Transfer I. Background I. National Technology Transfer
Network (TTN). Following signature, a II. Summary of the Final Amendments Advancement Act
copy of the final action will be posted III. Impacts of the Final Amendments J. Congressional Review Act
on the TTN’s policy and guidance page IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed
for newly proposed or promulgated Amendments I. Background
rules at the following address: http:// A. Equivalency of Opacity Limit On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), we
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN B. Monitoring Requirements issued the NESHAP for integrated iron
provides information and technology C. Applicability to Sinter Coolers Without
and steel manufacturing facilities (40
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Stacks
exchange in various areas of air D. Applicability to Discharges Inside CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF). The
pollution control. Buildings NESHAP implement section 112(d) of
Judicial Review. Under section E. Operating Limit the CAA by requiring all major sources
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), F. Corrective Action to meet emission standards for
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:17 Jul 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM 13JYR1
39580 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) amendments to the NESHAP will COMS is not required for a positive-
reflecting application of the maximum resolve the petitioners’ concerns. pressure baghouse not equipped with
achievable control technology (MACT). exhaust gas stacks that was installed
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
The NESHAP establish emission before August 30, 2005.
limitations for emission sources in each The final amendments revise the
applicability of the emission limits for The final amendments revise the
new or existing sinter plant, blast requirements for operation and
furnace, and basic oxygen process sinter cooler stacks at new and existing
sinter plants. The revised limits apply to maintenance (O&M) plans. The
furnace (BOPF) shop.
After publication of the NESHAP, five each sinter cooler instead of to each corrective action procedures in 40 CFR
steel companies and one trade sinter cooler stack. The final 63.7800(b)(4) are expanded to apply to
association filed a petition for review amendments also establish a 10 percent baghouses equipped with COMS in
challenging the final standards (AK opacity limit for a sinter cooler at an addition to those with bag leak
Steel Corporation et al. v. U.S. existing sinter plant instead of the detection systems. Plants must initiate
Environmental Protection Agency, no. particulate matter (PM) emission limit corrective action if a bag leak detection
03–1207, D.C. Cir.). The petitioners of 0.03 grains per dry standard cubic system alarm is triggered or if emissions
raised the following issues: feet (gr/dscf). In response to comments, from a baghouse equipped with a COMS
• Failing to respond to substantive we have added a new compliance date exceed an hourly average opacity of 5
industry comments questioning the for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter percent.
definitions, subcategorization, control plant and require compliance by Corrective action procedures also
technologies identified, emission January 13, 2007. We have also added apply to other types of control devices.
standards, testing and monitoring, and a provision to the opacity test If a venturi scrubber equipped with
other aspects of the proposed rule; procedures which describes the general continuous parameter monitoring
• Failing to provide justification for direction an observer should take for systems (CPMS) or an ESP equipped
setting standards for ladle metallurgy observations of uncovered portions of with a COMS exceeds the opacity
operations, sinter plant discharge ends, sinter coolers.
operating limit, plants must take
and sinter coolers; The final amendments add a new
corrective action consistent with their
• Requiring bag leak detection footnote to Table 1 of subpart FFFFF to
clarify that PM limits do not apply to site-specific monitoring plan. New
systems to be used for positive pressure
discharges inside a building or structure provisions added to 40 CFR 63.7833
baghouse systems that discharge
housing a discharge end at an existing require plants to initiate corrective
without stacks or from baghouse
systems with continuous emission sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an action to determine the cause of the
monitors; existing blast furnace, or inside an exceedance within 1 hour and to
• Applying emission standards to existing basic oxygen process furnace measure operating parameter value(s)
control devices that do not discharge to (BOPF) shop because these discharges for the emission unit within 24 hours of
the ambient air; are subject to opacity limits. In response the exceedance. If the measured value(s)
• Imposing stringent testing, to comments, we have revised the meet the applicable operating limit, the
monitoring, inspection, and reporting proposed footnote to clarify that it corrective action is successful and the
requirements on insignificant sources; applies only to control devices installed emission unit is in compliance with the
• Providing for the establishment of before August 30, 2005. applicable operating limit. If the initial
source-specific opacity limitations The frequency for conducting corrective action is not successful,
based on opacity observations made subsequent performance tests has been additional corrective action is required
during required source performance changed from twice each permit term to within the next 24 hours. Plants must
testing and by specifying use of once each permit term for emission re-measure the operating parameter(s)
infeasible technical requirements for units equipped with a baghouse. Repeat and if the corrective action is successful,
such observations; and performance tests are still required at the emission unit is in compliance with
• Failing to adequately consider least twice each permit term for a sinter the applicable operating limit. If the
health threshold levels and to allow for cooler at an existing sinter plant, for second attempt at corrective action is
alternative emission standards, each unit equipped with a control not successful, the plant must report the
performance testing requirements or device other than a baghouse, and each exceedance as a deviation in the next
monitoring methods that are affected source without a title V semiannual compliance report.
demonstrated to provide comparable operating permit.
protection to public health and the The final amendments also revise the The final amendments also clarify the
environment. operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7790(b)(3) requirements for establishing venturi
EPA and industry petitioners entered for an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) scrubber parametric operating limits in
into a settlement agreement whereby that controls emissions from a BOPF. 40 CFR 63.7824(b) by stating that plants
EPA agreed to sign a notice proposing The revised operating limit requires the may establish the limit during the initial
certain amendments by September 23, plant owner or operator to maintain the performance test or during any other
2005. See 70 FR 36383, June 23, 2005 hourly average opacity of emissions performance test that meets the
(public notice of settlement agreement from the control device at or below 10 emission limit. We have also revised the
pursuant to section 113 of the CAA; percent. definition of ‘‘ladle metallurgy’’ by
EPA received no adverse comment on Section 63.7830(b) of the NESHAP stating that vacuum degassing is not
this notice of settlement). These requires a bag leak detection system for included in the definition. The final
amendments were proposed on August each baghouse used to meet a PM limit. amendments also make clarifying
30, 2005 (70 FR 51306). Three The final amendments add an changes to certain monitoring,
organizations commented on the alternative allowing plants to use a recordkeeping, and reporting
proposed amendments during the 60- continuous opacity monitoring system requirements cited in Table 4 to subpart
day comment period which ended on (COMS) to monitor the opacity of FFFFF (Applicability of General
October 31, 2005. EPA and the emissions exiting each control device Provisions to Subpart FFFFF) and
petitioners anticipate that the final stack. A bag leak detection system or correct errors in certain entries.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 39581
III. Impacts of the Final Amendments to ensure the best monitoring roof monitor. The applicable emission
The final amendments do not affect technology is in place. limit for emissions from the building is
the level of emissions control required Response: MACT standards are based the opacity limit, and the air discharged
by the existing NESHAP or the nonair, on the level of control achieved by the inside the building is subject to this
health, environmental, and energy best-performing sources and a further limit. However, we agree that control
impacts. However, the costs of evaluation of what further reductions devices installed on or after proposal of
implementing the existing rule will be could be achieved considering cost, the final amendments (August 30, 2005)
reduced in future years. For example, energy, and nonair environmental should be designed and operated to
the reduction in subsequent impacts. Continuous monitoring meet the PM emissions limit, and we are
performance tests for an emissions requirements are not determined by a including this provision in the final
source equipped with a baghouse will MACT floor or beyond-the-floor amendments.
reduce the nationwide cost of PM analysis. The continuous monitoring
requirements are selected after E. Operating Limit
testing over the next 5 years from
consideration of many factors, such as Comment: One commenter asked if
$270,000/year to $180,000/year, a
the type of control device, source the hourly average operating limit for
savings of $90,000/year.
characteristics, and how to ensure that monitoring electrostatic precipitators
IV. Response to Comments on the the MACT emission limit is being met (ESP) included time when the facility is
Proposed Amendments on a continuous basis. The standard not operating. If so, the facility could
requires monitoring of capture and average in zeros to meet the hourly
A. Equivalency of Opacity Limit
control systems to ensure they are limit. The commenter stated that
Comment: One commenter asked if operating properly, and these changing from a 6-minute average to an
the opacity limit for sinter coolers monitoring requirements are provided hourly average did not appear to be
would achieve the same emission level, in the section of the rule entitled protective of public health.
be equally protective of public health, ‘‘Continuous Compliance Response: The hourly average does
and measure the same pollutants and Requirements’’ (40 CFR 63.7830 through not include time when the facility is not
the same levels of emissions as the PM 63.7835). See also Sierra Club, 353 F.3d operating because BOPF shops contain
limit of 0.03 gr/dscf? at 991 (CAA section 114(a)(3) does not two steelmaking furnaces (a few have
Response: The opacity limit is a better require continuous monitoring). For three furnaces), and at least one of these
representation of the MACT floor and fugitive emissions that by definition are furnaces is almost always at some point
will ensure that all sinter coolers not emitted through stacks, opacity in the steel production cycle. For
perform at the MACT level of control or observations by EPA Method 9 (40 CFR example, if one furnace finishes a
better. The limit will achieve lower part 60, appendix A) are the most steelmaking ‘‘heat’’, the second furnace
emission levels (and presumably be effective means of monitoring to ensure begins a heat while the first furnace is
more protective of public health) than compliance. We are not aware of a being tapped. The exception is during a
the concentration limit of 0.03 gr/dscf in monitoring technology that is better shutdown, and in that case, parametric
the current rule because it will apply to than Method 9 for fugitive emissions. monitoring is not required or relevant.
all sinter coolers, not just to those with As we stated earlier, residual risk
stacks. However, we did not perform a C. Applicability to Sinter Coolers remaining after the MACT standard and
risk analysis and evaluate protection of Without Stacks the extent to which further risk-based
public health for the MACT standard Comment: One commenter believed controls may be needed to protect
because residual risk will be assessed no that the proposed amendments did not public health with an ample margin of
later than 8 years following the apply an emission limit to sinter coolers safety will be assessed 8 years following
promulgation of the MACT standard without stacks. the promulgation of the MACT
(section 112(f)(2) of the CAA). See Response: The commenter standard.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 990 misunderstood the proposed rule
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J.) (EPA is not F. Corrective Action
amendments. The proposed
to consider risk when promulgating amendments applied a MACT emission Comment: One commenter said that
section 112(d) MACT standards because limit of 10 percent opacity to coolers the proposed corrective action
that is the province of the residual risk without stacks. procedures for ESP and baghouses are
analysis to be conducted under section flawed because they do not require the
112(f)). The opacity limit and D. Applicability to Discharges Inside facility to correct the problem and only
concentration limit are a measure of the Buildings require they report it in their
same pollutant, PM, which is a Comment: One commenter pointed semiannual compliance report. The
surrogate for particulate metal HAP. out that the proposed amendments did authorized agency should be notified
not apply to discharges inside buildings immediately of the violation. Otherwise,
B. Monitoring Requirements and asked if the health of workers the agency may not know about the
Comment: One commenter stated that would be adequately protected from violation until 6 months later. In
the reason for changing to an opacity these emissions. Does this open a general, EPA should require monthly
limit was the inability to measure PM loophole that allows a facility to reports instead of semiannual reports so
emissions from sinter coolers without discharge inside a building to avoid an that the implementing agency and
stacks. The commenter expressed emission limit? What if the air public know much sooner when a
concerne that the MACT technology is discharged inside a building is emitted violation occurs, and an appropriate
not being achieved for monitoring or to the ambient air through the remedy can be instigated much sooner.
measuring emissions and asked if this ventilation system? Response: This comment is beyond
would be a problem if a facility were Response: The capture and control the scope of the proposed amendments.
required to modernize its monitoring systems reduce worker exposure to We did not propose any changes to the
equipment to implement MACT. The fugitive emissions that occur within the NESHAP that affected the semiannual
commenter recommended that a MACT building. The air discharged inside the reporting requirements or otherwise
standard be implemented for monitoring building exits through the building’s reopened the issue of the
appropriateness of those requirements; to be deficient. That is, a source could not continuous basis. Section 63.7831(f) of
consequently, they are not subject to use ‘‘following the plan’’ as a defense for an the rule provides detailed requirements
public comment. In the event any inadequate program to minimize emissions. for the proper installation, operation,
response is considered necessary, With respect to review of the plan or and maintenance of bag leak detectors.
however, we note that the semiannual revisions, we stated: Moreover, the monitoring requirements
reporting requirements are consistent Review of each SSM plan, from each in § 63.7830(b)(4) discussed earlier
with § 63.10(e)(3) of the General facility, by the permitting authority, for include inspections and other
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), adequacy prior to implementation is neither monitoring in addition to the bag leak
and we have no reason to impose more reasonable nor necessary. There are detection system. The combination of
stringent requirements for the integrated thousands of sources required to develop bag leak detectors and the extensive
iron and steel industry. SSM plans, and each plan is tailored to its inspection and monitoring requirements
For more background, the commenter source. Some plans are closely tied and cross
referenced to other operating materials at the
for baghouses provide more assurance of
should examine our responses to public proper operation than would more
source. Many, and perhaps most, plans
comments on semiannual reporting frequent snapshot performance tests.
contain CBI. The burden on the permitting
requirements in our final rule authorities to review every plan would be Consequently, we concluded that
amendments to the General Provisions enormous. performance testing more frequently
that reduced recordkeeping and than once per permit term for these
reporting requirements (64 FR 7458, However, it is important to note that
the Administrator (or an authorized baghouses was not necessary. This
February 12, 1999). We explained that: testing frequency is consistent with
permitting authority) may at any time
* * * EPA’s experience over the past ten require a facility owner or operator to many existing operating permits.
years with a variety of NSPS and NESHAP
submit a copy of an SSM plan. We used the term ‘‘minor’’ in a
rulemakings covering industries of all types
suggests that semi-annual reporting provides H. Applicability of MACT Standards qualitative way (i.e., it is not a term
sufficiently timely information to both ensure defined in the rule) to describe
compliance and enable adequate enforcement Comment: One commenter asked if baghouses applied to ancillary processes
of applicable requirements, while imposing MACT standards were still in place with that do not generate the large volume of
less burden on the affected industry than the proposed change that requires bag emissions associated with primary
would quarterly reporting. leak detection systems only for production processes such as the sinter
It is in the facility’s interest to ensure baghouses with stacks. plant windboxes and steelmaking
that the corrective actions are successful Response: The MACT standards are furnaces. The ancillary processes
to avoid penalties and fines. The facility still in place for all affected sources include hot metal transfer,
may be found in violation and subject operating with baghouses. All such desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy.
to penalties and fines if the corrective sources are subject to a MACT PM
actions continue to be unsuccessful. A emissions limit expressed in gr/dscf. In J. Opacity Observations of Sinter Cooler
continued pattern of non-compliance addition, all baghouses are subject to
extensive inspection and monitoring Comment: In principle, the
may be considered in determining the
requirements in § 63.7831(b)(4). The commenter supports EPA’s decision to
magnitude of penalties.
requirements applying to all baghouses revise the emission limit for sinter
G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions include daily monitoring of pressure coolers from a grain loading limit to an
Comment: One commenter stated that drop across each baghouse cell, weekly opacity limit because some sinter
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction visual inspections to confirm dust is coolers are open to the ambient air, with
(SSM) requirements were not protective removed from hoppers, daily checks of their emissions to the atmosphere being
enough because they allow a facility to compressed air supply for pulse-jet fugitive in nature, rather than through a
craft a plan such that an SSM event is baghouses, monitoring cleaning cycles, stack. However, the commenter feels
not an exceedance as long as the monthly checks of the bag cleaning that design considerations at some
facility’s response is consistent with the mechanism and bag tension, and sinter coolers that do not use a stack
SSM plan. Furthermore, the facility inspections to assess physical integrity make accurate opacity observations
should not be allowed to modify the and fan wear or corrosion. problematic. At the commenter’s sinter
SSM plan without prior Administrator plant, air is forced upward through the
approval. I. Subsequent Performance Tests for cooler bed, a donut-shaped ring
Response: This comment is also Baghouses approximately 5 feet wide and 50 feet in
beyond the scope of the proposed Comment: One commenter objected to diameter at its outside edge. Emissions
amendments. We did not propose, the change of requiring performance rise upward from the bed and into the
solicit comment on, or otherwise reopen tests every 2.5 years to every 5 years for atmosphere. The commenter contends
this issue. If any response is considered baghouses. The reasoning that bag leak that a visible emission observer would
necessary, however, we note that the detection systems are in place is not have a difficult time accurately
SSM requirements come directly from adequate justification because they may assessing opacity due to overlapping or
the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 not be working properly. The mingling of other plumes. These plumes
CFR part 63, and we have no reason to commenter also asked EPA to clarify are primarily from the discharge end of
implement different requirements for what a ‘‘minor’’ emission unit means the sinter strand, from material handling
this standard. and asked if major units would be sources, and from the side of the cooler
For further information, the affected by the reduction in the that is directly opposite of the side from
commenter can consult our proposed frequency of performance testing. which the observations are recorded.
amendments to the General Provisions Response: A performance test Similarly, the commenter feels that heat
(70 FR 43992, July 29, 2005). In that provides a ‘‘snap shot’’ of performance, waves from one side of the cooler can
notice we discuss the ‘‘general duty
usually as the average of three 1-hour interfere with the accuracy of opacity
clause’’ in the General Provisions and runs. However, we require continuous readings made from the other side of the
note that: monitoring of the control device, and in cooler. The commenter argues that these
* * * following the SSM plan itself is no this case, bag leak detectors provide conditions can impart a positive bias to
‘‘safe harbor’’ for sources if the plan is found assurance of proper operation on a the readings, which could raise the
potential for exceedances of the opacity This language dictates that the observer the original rule (May 22, 2006). This
standard. The commenter requests must be far enough from the heat waves would allow time to design a
language in the final rule that provides and at such an angle to ensure that compliance strategy, evaluate control
for a work practice/operational standard observations are made at such a height options, and install controls that may be
in lieu of the opacity standard. as to remove any potential interference. necessary to comply with the new
Response: Representatives of EPA and We feel that this language also addresses standard.
the State agency visited the the commenter’s concerns regarding Response: We agree that the 10
commenter’s sinter plant and evaluated other potential emission sources. percent opacity limit is a new standard
the commenter’s concerns regarding an Consequently, we do not see a need to for sinter coolers. We concluded that it
observer’s ability to perform accurate change the rule language to address this is permissible for us to establish a new
visible emissions observations. We agree issue. compliance date for the sinter cooler
that performing visible emissions We decided that two other issues standard, i.e., a compliance date not tied
observations at this source is more raised by the commenter during the site to the compliance date of the previous
problematic than at most sources. First, visit warrant discussion. One issue is standard for sinter coolers in the
performing observations from ground that Method 9 does not address in what original rule. See CAA section
level at this source does not give the general direction an observer should be 112(i)(3)(A) (which ties compliance
observer an adequate view of all viewing an emission source of this type. dates to the effective dates of ‘‘any
potential emission sources in proximity If the observer is looking tangentially emissions standard’’ promulgated under
to the cooler. An observer could mistake along the arc of the cooler, readings section 112, and so does not tie the date
emissions from the sinter strand would have a positive bias compared to to an initially adopted standard).
discharge end for cooler emissions, and the observer looking approximately However, compliance is still to be as
therefore, readings should be taken from perpendicular to the tangent of the bed expeditious as possible. It is our
some elevated level. We identified at generally toward the center of the engineering judgment that 6 months
least two elevated positions at this cooler. We have added language to the
from date of publication is a reasonable
source from which observations can be rule to clarify this. The second issue
time for compliance for most sources
made. However, while there are a relates to potential positive bias due to
because most sources will not have to
number of platforms that are adjacent to luminescence of the plume and
install additional controls. It is possible
the cooler that are accessible for this background used. This is mentioned in
that individual sources may require
purpose, we acknowledge that the east the preamble to Method 9 as exerting an
more time to comply and may petition
platform is situated such that intense influence on the appearance of a plume.
EPA for more time pursuant to the case-
heat from the bed is likely to disqualify Numerous structures near the sinter
by-case extension mechanism in CAA
this position as a safety matter. plant cooler can cause the plume being
Regarding the commenter’s concerns section 112(i)(3)(B), which is codified in
observed and/or the background to be in
related to emissions from one side of the shadows. Consistent with Method 9, 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(i). This provision
cooler interfering with the accurate observers of sinter coolers should not allows individual sources to submit
observations of emissions from the read opacity when shadows may compliance extension requests of up to
opposite side of the cooler, we influence observations. Because this 1 year where the extension is necessary
concluded that this issue is adequately issue is discussed in the preamble to for the installation of controls.
addressed by existing rule language and Method 9, we decided that the language V. Statutory and Executive Order
guidance for EPA Method 9 (40 CFR in the current rule should not be Reviews
part 60, appendix A). While there can be changed.
emissions from the feed end of the We have considered the commenter’s A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
cooler, these emissions will decrease request for the option of an alternative Planning and Review
essentially to zero a short distance from work practice or operating standard, in Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
the feed end. When no emissions are lieu of an opacity standard. However, 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
visible from the opposite side of the there are too many process variables determine whether the regulatory action
cooler, Method 9 observations of the that can affect emissions from the cooler is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to
sinter cooler can occur without multiple to provide for a meaningful alternative. review by the Office of Management and
plume distortion. As a regulatory These variables include the types of raw Budget (OMB) and the requirements of
matter, reading through multiple materials used in the sintering process, the Executive Order. The Executive
plumes is essentially prohibited by bed depth, bed speed, uniformity of the Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
section 2.1 of Method 9. Therefore, if surface of the bed, fan speed, and the action’’ as one that is likely to result in
any visible emissions arise from the condition of the grates, windbox a rule that may:
discharge side of the sinter cooler ductwork, and fan. Changing just one of
during the Method 9 test that cause an (1) Have an annual effect on the
these variables may be insufficient to
interference with sinter cooler readings, economy of $100 million or more or
affect cooler emissions. Changes to a
the test must be discontinued. adversely affect in a material way the
combination of variables may be needed
A similar issue is the potential economy, a sector of the economy,
at one point in time, where a different
interference from heat waves. We agree productivity, competition, jobs, the
combination may be needed at another
that heat waves can have an influence environment, public health or safety, or
point in time.
(positive bias) on readings, depending State, local, or tribal governments or
on their intensity and relative location K. Compliance Date communities;
to the observer and the plume that is Comment: Sinter coolers without (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
being read. Additional language in stacks were not regulated under the otherwise interfere with an action taken
section 2.1 of Method 9 provides original PM limit, but would be or planned by another agency;
direction on how this should be regulated for the first time under the (3) Materially alter the budgetary
addressed: ‘‘The qualified observer shall proposed opacity limit. Two impact of entitlement, grants, user fees,
stand at a distance sufficient to provide commenters requested a 3-year or loan programs or the rights and
a clear view of the emissions * * *’’. extension from the compliance date of obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues C. Regulatory Flexibility Act governments, it must have developed
arising out of legal mandates, the EPA has determined that it is not under section 203 of the UMRA a small
President’s priorities, or the principles necessary to prepare a regulatory government agency plan. The plan must
set forth in the Executive Order. flexibility analysis in connection with provide for notifying potentially
It has been determined that the final these final rule amendments. affected small governments, enabling
For the purposes of assessing the officials of affected small governments
rule amendments are not a ‘‘significant
impacts of today’s proposed to have meaningful and timely input in
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
amendments on small entities, small the development of EPA regulatory
Executive Order 12866 and are,
entity is defined as: (1) A small business proposals with significant Federal
therefore, not subject to OMB review. intergovernmental mandates, and
as defined by the Small Business
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Administration at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
This action does not impose any new small governmental jurisdiction that is a
the regulatory requirements.
information collection burden. The final government of a city, county, town,
EPA has determined that the final rule
school district, or special district with a amendments do not contain a Federal
amendments provide additional
population of less than 50,000; and (3) mandate that may result in expenditures
flexibility through revised requirements
a small organization that is any not-for- of $100 million or more for State, local,
for monitoring operational parameters
profit enterprise which is independently and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
which would not increase the existing
owned and operated and is not or to the private sector in any 1 year.
information collection burden. Other
dominant in its field. Thus, today’s final rule amendments are
changes, such as the reduction in After considering the economic
subsequent PM performance tests for not subject to the requirements of
impacts of today’s final rule sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
certain emissions sources, are expected amendments on small entities, EPA has
to decrease the information collection addition, EPA has determined that the
concluded that this action will not have final rule amendments contain no
burden in future years. However, OMB a significant economic impact on a
has previously approved the regulatory requirements that might
substantial number of small entities. significantly or uniquely affect small
information collection requirements The final rule amendments will not
contained in the existing regulations (40 governments, because they contain no
impose any requirements on small requirements that apply to such
CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) under the entities. None of the regulated
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction governments or impose obligations
integrated iron and steel manufacturing upon them.
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has facilities are small businesses.
assigned OMB control number 2060– E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
0517, EPA Information Collection D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Request (ICR) number 2003.02. A copy Title II of the Unfunded Mandates ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
of the OMB-approved ICR may be Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 1999) requires EPA to develop an
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Law 104–4, establishes requirements for accountable process to ensure
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), Federal agencies to assess the effects of ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., their regulatory actions on State, local, and local officials in the development of
Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at and tribal governments and the private regulatory policies that have federalism
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
566–1672. EPA generally must prepare a written federalism implications’’ are defined in
Burden means the total time, effort, or statement, including a cost-benefit the Executive Order to include
financial resources expended by persons analysis, for proposed and final rules regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may effects on the States, on the relationship
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
result in expenditures by State, local, between the national government and
or provide information to or for a
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, the States, or on the distribution of
Federal agency. This includes the time
or to the private sector, of $100 million power and responsibilities among the
needed to review instructions; develop,
or more in any 1 year. Before various levels of government.’’
acquire, install, and utilize technology
promulgating an EPA rule for which a The final rule amendments do not
and systems for the purposes of
written statement is needed, section 205 have federalism implications. They
collecting, validating, and verifying
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to would not have substantial direct effects
information, processing and
identify and consider a reasonable on the States, on the relationship
maintaining information, and disclosing
number of regulatory alternatives and between the national government and
and providing information; adjust the
adopt the least costly, most cost- the States, or on the distribution of
existing ways to comply with any effective, or least burdensome
previously applicable instructions and power and responsibilities among the
alternative that achieves the objectives various levels of government, as
requirements; train personnel to be able of the rule. The provisions of section
to respond to a collection of specified in Executive Order 13132.
205 do not apply when they are None of the affected plants are owned
information; search data sources; inconsistent with applicable law.
complete and review the collection of or operated by State governments. Thus,
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to Executive Order 13132 does not apply
information; and transmit or otherwise adopt an alternative other than the least
disclose the information. to the final rule amendments.
costly, most cost-effective, or least
An agency may not conduct or burdensome alternative if the F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
sponsor, and a person is not required to Administrator publishes with the final and Coordination With Indian Tribal
respond to a collection of information rule an explanation why that alternative Governments
unless it displays a currently valid OMB was not adopted. Before EPA establishes Executive Order 13175, entitled
control number. The OMB control any regulatory requirements that may ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 significantly or uniquely affect small Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. governments, including tribal 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to Congress, through OMB, explanations (2) No later than January 13, 2007 for
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by when the Agency does not use available a sinter cooler at an existing sinter
tribal officials in the development of and applicable VCS. plant.
regulatory policies that have tribal The final rule amendments do not * * * * *
implications.’’ The final rule involve technical standards. Therefore,
■ 3. Section 63.7790 is amended by
amendments do not have tribal EPA is not considering the use of any
revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
implications, as specified in Executive VCS.
follows:
Order 13175. No tribal governments J. Congressional Review Act
own plants subject to the MACT § 63.7790 What emission limitations must I
standards for integrated iron and steel The Congressional Review Act, 5 meet?
manufacturing. Thus, Executive Order U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the * * * * *
13175 does not apply to the final rule Small Business Regulatory Enforcement (b) * * *
amendments. Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides (3) For each electrostatic precipitator
that before a rule may take effect, the applied to emissions from a BOPF, you
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of agency promulgating the rule must
Children From Environmental Health must maintain the hourly average
submit a rule report, which includes a opacity of emissions exiting the control
and Safety Risks copy of the rule, to each House of the device at or below 10 percent.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a * * * * *
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically report containing the final amendments ■ 4. Section 63.7800 is amended by:
significant,’’ as defined under Executive and other required information to the ■ a. Revising the second sentence in
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of paragraph (b) introductory text;
Representatives, and the Comptroller ■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(4)
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a General of the United States prior to introductory text;
publication of the final amendments in ■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi);
disproportionate effect on children. If
the Federal Register. A major rule ■ d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
EPA must evaluate the environmental cannot take effect until 60 days after it (b)(7); and
is published in the Federal Register. ■ e. Adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as (b)(6) to read as follows:
planned regulation is preferable to other defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final § 63.7800 What are my operation and
potentially effective and reasonably amendments are effective on July 13, maintenance requirements?
feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 2006.
* * * * *
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 (b) * * * Each plan must address the
as applying only to those regulatory elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through
actions that are based on health or safety Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous (7) of this section.
risks, such that the analysis required
substances, Reporting and * * * * *
under section 5–501 of the Executive
recordkeeping requirements. (4) Corrective action procedures for
Order has the potential to influence the
Dated: July 6, 2006.
baghouses equipped with bag leak
regulation. The final rule amendments
detection systems or continuous opacity
are not subject to the Executive Order Stephen L. Johnson,
monitoring systems (COMS). In the
because they are based on control Administrator.
event a bag leak detection system alarm
technology and not on health or safety ■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, is triggered or emissions from a
risks. title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code baghouse equipped with a COMS
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That of Federal Regulations is amended as exceed an hourly average opacity of 5
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, follows: percent, you must initiate corrective
Distribution, or Use action to determine the cause of the
PART 63—[AMENDED] alarm within 1 hour of the alarm,
The final rule amendments are not
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 initiate corrective action to correct the
28355, May 22, 2001) because they are continues to read as follows: cause of the problem within 24 hours of
not a significant regulatory action under Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. the alarm, and complete the corrective
Executive Order 12866. action as soon as practicable. Corrective
Subpart FFFFF—[AMENDED] actions may include, but are not limited
I. National Technology Transfer to:
Advancement Act ■ 2. Section 63.7783 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: * * * * *
Section 12(d) of the National (vi) Shutting down the process
Technology Transfer and Advancement § 63.7783 When do I have to comply with producing the particulate emissions.
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– this subpart? (5) Corrective action procedures for
113, 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to (a) If you have an existing affected venturi scrubbers equipped with
use voluntary consensus standards source, you must comply with each continuous parameter monitoring
(VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless emission limitation and operation and systems (CPMS). In the event a venturi
to do so would be inconsistent with maintenance requirement in this scrubber exceeds the operating limit in
applicable law or otherwise impractical. subpart that applies to you by the dates § 63.7790(b)(2), you must take corrective
The VCS are technical standards (e.g., specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of actions consistent with your site-
materials specifications, test methods,
this section. specific monitoring plan in accordance

sampling procedures, and business (1) No later than May 22, 2006 for all with § 63.7831(a).
practices) that are developed or adopted emissions sources at an existing affected (6) Corrective action procedures for
by one or more VCS bodies. The source except for a sinter cooler at an electrostatic precipitators equipped with
NTTAA directs EPA to provide existing sinter plant. COMS. In the event an electrostatic
precipitator exceeds the operating limit newly designated paragraph (e)(4) to (3) For each venturi scrubber subject
in § 63.7790(b)(3), you must take read as follows: to the operating limits for pressure drop
corrective actions consistent with your and scrubber water flow rate in
site-specific monitoring plan in § 63.7824 What test methods and other § 63.7790(b)(2), you have established
procedures must I use to establish and
accordance with § 63.7831(a). demonstrate initial compliance with
appropriate site-specific operating limits
* * * * * operating limits? and have a record of the pressure drop
■ 5. Section 63.7821 is revised to read
and scrubber water flow rate measured
* * * * *
as follows: during the performance test in
(b) * * * You may establish the
(a) You must conduct subsequent accordance with § 63.7824(b).
parametric monitoring limit during the
performance tests to demonstrate (b) For each existing or new sinter
initial performance test or during any
compliance with all applicable PM and plant subject to the operating limit in
other performance test run that meets
opacity limits in Table 1 to this subpart § 63.7790(d)(1), you have demonstrated
the emission limit.
at the frequencies specified in initial compliance if the 30-day rolling
(1) Using the CPMS required in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this average of the oil content of the
§ 63.7830(c), measure and record the
section. feedstock, measured during the initial
pressure drop and scrubber water flow
(b) For each sinter cooler at an performance test in accordance with
rate during each run of the particulate
existing sinter plant and each emissions § 63.7824(d) is no more than 0.02
matter performance test.
unit equipped with a control device percent. For each existing or new sinter
* * * * * plant subject to the alternative operating
other than a baghouse, you must (c) You may change the operating
conduct subsequent performance tests limit in § 63.7790(d)(2), you have
limits for a capture system or venturi demonstrated initial compliance if the
no less frequently than twice (at mid- scrubber if you meet the requirements in
term and renewal) during each term of 30-day rolling average of the volatile
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this organic compound emissions from the
your title V operating permit. section.
(c) For each emissions unit equipped sinter plant windbox exhaust stream,
* * * * * measured during the initial performance
with a baghouse, you must conduct
(3) Establish revised operating limits test in accordance with § 63.7824(e) is
subsequent performance tests no less
according to the applicable procedures no more than 0.2 lb/ton of sinter
frequently than once during each term
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section produced.
of your title V operating permit.
for a control device or capture system. * * * * *
(d) For sources without a title V
(d) For each sinter plant subject to the
operating permit, you must conduct ■ 9. Section 63.7826 is amended by
operating limit for the oil content of the
subsequent performance tests every 2.5 revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
sinter plant feedstock in § 63.7790(d)(1),
years. follows:
you must demonstrate initial
■ 6. Section 63.7823 is amended by compliance according to the procedures § 63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this compliance with the operation and
§ 63.7823 What test methods and other section. maintenance requirements that apply to
procedures must I use to demonstrate * * * * * me?
initial compliance with the opacity limits? (e) To demonstrate initial compliance * * * * *
* * * * * with the alternative operating limit for (b) * * *
(e) To determine compliance with the volatile organic compound emissions (1) Prepared the control device
applicable opacity limit in Table 1 to from the sinter plant windbox exhaust operation and maintenance plan
this subpart for a sinter cooler at an stream in § 63.7790(d)(2), follow the test according to the requirements of
existing sinter plant: methods and procedures in paragraphs § 63.7800(b), including a preventative
(1) Using a certified observer, (e)(1) through (5) of this section. maintenance schedule and, as
determine the opacity of emissions * * * * * applicable, detailed descriptions of the
according to Method 9 in appendix A to (4) Continue the sampling and corrective action procedures for
part 60 of this chapter. analysis procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) baghouses and other control devices;
(2) Obtain a minimum of 30 6-minute through (3) of this section for 30 * * * * *
block averages. consecutive days. ■ 10. Section 63.7830 is amended by
(3) Make visible emission * * * * * revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e)(1), and
observations of uncovered portions of (e)(2) to read as follows:
■ 8. Section 63.7825 is amended by:
sinter plant coolers with the observer’s
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and
line of sight generally in the direction of § 63.7830 What are my monitoring
(a)(3); requirements?
the center of the cooler.
■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(4); and
■ 7. Section 63.7824 is amended by: * * * * *
■ c. Revising paragraph (b) to read as
■ a. Adding a second sentence to the follows: (b) Except as provided in paragraph
end of paragraph (b) introductory text; (b)(3) of this section, you must meet the
■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); § 63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2)
■ c. Removing paragraph (c); compliance with the emission limitations of this section for each baghouse
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) that apply to me? applied to meet any particulate
through (g) as paragraphs (c) through (f); (a) * * * emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
■ e. Revising newly designated (2) For each capture system subject to You must conduct inspections of each
paragraph (c) introductory text and the operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(1), baghouse according to the requirements
you have established appropriate site- in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
newly designated paragraph (c)(3);

■ f. Revising newly designated specific operating limit(s) and have a (1) Install, operate, and maintain a bag
paragraph (d) introductory text; and record of the operating parameter data leak detection system according to
■ g. Revising newly designated measured during the performance test in § 63.7831(f) and monitor the relative
paragraph (e) introductory text and accordance with § 63.7824(a)(1); and change in particulate matter loadings
according to the requirements in (e) * * * ■ 12. Section 63.7833 is amended by:

§ 63.7832; or (1) Compute and record the 30-day ■ a. Revising paragraph (c);
(2) If you do not install and operate rolling average of the oil content of the ■ b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
a bag leak detection system, you must feedstock for each operating day using text and adding new paragraph (d)(4);
install, operate, and maintain a COMS the procedures in § 63.7824(d); or ■ c. Revising paragraphs (e)
according to the requirements in (2) Compute and record the 30-day introductory text, and (e)(1), and adding
§ 63.7831(h) and monitor the hourly rolling average of the volatile organic new paragraph (e)(3);
average opacity of emissions exiting compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) ■ d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
each control device stack according to for each operating day using the (f)(2)(i); and
the requirements in § 63.7832. procedures in § 63.7824(e). ■ e. Adding new paragraph (g) to read
(3) A bag leak detection system and ■ 11. Section 63.7831 is amended by: as follows:
COMS are not required for a baghouse ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)
§ 63.7833 How do I demonstrate
that meets the requirements in introductory text, (a)(5) and (a)(6), and continuous compliance with the emission
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8); limitations that apply to me?
section. ■ b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory
(i) The baghouse is a positive pressure text; and * * * * *
■ c. Revising paragraphs (h) (c) For each baghouse applied to meet
baghouse and is not equipped with
introductory text and (h)(4) to read as any particulate emission limit in Table
exhaust gas stacks; and
(ii) The baghouse was installed before follows: 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate
August 30, 2005. continuous compliance by meeting the
§ 63.7831 What are the installation, requirements in paragraph (c)(1) or (2)
(4) You must conduct inspections of operation, and maintenance requirements
each baghouse at the specified of this section as applicable, and
for my monitors? paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section:
frequencies according to the
(a) For each CPMS required in (1) For a baghouse equipped with a
requirements in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) § 63.7830, you must develop and make
through (viii) of this section. bag leak detection system, operating and
available for inspection upon request by maintaining each bag leak detection
(i) Monitor the pressure drop across
the permitting authority a site-specific system according to § 63.7831(f) and
each baghouse cell each day to ensure
monitoring plan that addresses the recording all information needed to
pressure drop is within the normal
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) document conformance with these
operating range identified in the
through (8) of this section. requirements. If you increase or
manual.
(ii) Confirm that dust is being * * * * * decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak
removed from hoppers through weekly (5) Ongoing data quality assurance detection system beyond the limits
visual inspections or other means of procedures in accordance with the specified in § 63.7831(f)(6), you must
ensuring the proper functioning of general requirements of § 63.8(d); include a copy of the required written
removal mechanisms. (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and certification by a responsible official in
(iii) Check the compressed air supply reporting procedures in accordance with the next semiannual compliance report.
for pulse-jet baghouses each day. the general requirements of §§ 63.10(c), (2) For a baghouse equipped with a
(iv) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i); COMS, operating and maintaining each
proper operation using an appropriate (7) Corrective action procedures you COMS and reducing the COMS data
methodology. will follow in the event a venturi according to § 63.7831(h).
(v) Check bag cleaning mechanisms scrubber exceeds the operating limit in (3) Inspecting each baghouse
for proper functioning through monthly § 63.7790(b)(2); and according to the requirements in
visual inspection or equivalent means. (8) Corrective action procedures you § 63.7830(b)(4) and maintaining all
(vi) Make monthly visual checks of will follow in the event an electrostatic records needed to document
bag tension on reverse air and shaker- precipitator exceeds the operating limit conformance with these requirements.
type baghouses to ensure that bags are in § 63.7790(b)(3). (4) Maintaining records of the time
not kinked (kneed or bent) or laying on * * * * * you initiated corrective action in the
their sides. You do not have to make (f) For each baghouse equipped with event of a bag leak detection system
this check for shaker-type baghouses a bag leak detection system according to alarm or when the hourly average
using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) § 63.7830(b)(1), you must install, opacity exceeded 5 percent, the
devices. operate, and maintain the bag leak corrective action(s) taken, and the date
(vii) Confirm the physical integrity of detection system according to the on which corrective action was
the baghouse through quarterly visual requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) completed.
inspections of the baghouse interior for through (7) of this section. (d) For each venturi scrubber subject
air leaks. * * * * * to the operating limits for pressure drop
(viii) Inspect fans for wear, material (h) For each electrostatic precipitator and scrubber water flow rate in
buildup, and corrosion through subject to the opacity operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(2), you must demonstrate
quarterly visual inspections, vibration § 63.7790(b)(3) and each baghouse continuous compliance by meeting the
detectors, or equivalent means. equipped with a COMS according to requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)
* * * * * § 63.7830(b)(2), you must install, through (4) of this section:
(d) For each electrostatic precipitator operate, and maintain each COMS * * * * *
subject to the opacity operating limit in according to the requirements in (4) If the hourly average pressure drop
§ 63.7790(b)(3), you must install, paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this or scrubber water flow rate is below the
operate, and maintain a COMS section. operating limits, you must follow the
according to the requirements in
* * * * * corrective action procedures in

§ 63.7831(h) and monitor the hourly (4) COMS data must be reduced to 6- paragraph (g) of this section.
average opacity of emissions exiting minute averages as specified in (e) For each electrostatic precipitator
each control device stack according to § 63.8(g)(2) and to hourly averages subject to the opacity operating limit in
the requirements in § 63.7832. where required by this subpart. § 63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by meeting the corrective action was taken. If the recording all information needed to
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) hourly average parameter value meets document conformance with these
through (3) of this section: the applicable operating limit, then the requirements, including the time you
(1) Maintaining the hourly average corrective action was successful and the initiated corrective action, the corrective
opacity of emissions no higher than 10 emission unit is in compliance with the action(s) taken within the first 24 hours
percent; and applicable operating limit. according to § 63.7833(g)(1) and
* * * * * (3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) whether they were successful, the
(3) If the hourly average opacity of and (2) of this section, in the case of an corrective action(s) taken within the
emissions exceeds 10 percent, you must exceedance of the hourly average second 24 hours according to
follow the corrective action procedures opacity operating limit for an § 63.7833(g)(2) and whether they were
in paragraph (g) of this section. electrostatic precipitator, measurements successful, and the date on which
(f) * * * of the hourly average opacity based on corrective action was completed.
(1) * * * visible emission observations in * * * * *
(i) Computing and recording the 30- accordance with Method 9 (40 CFR part
■ 14. Section 63.7835 is amended by
day rolling average of the percent oil 60, appendix A) may be taken to
revising the first sentence in paragraph
content for each operating day evaluate the effectiveness of corrective
(a) to read as follows:
according to the performance test action.
procedures in § 63.7824(d); (4) If the second attempt at corrective § 63.7835 What other requirements must I
* * * * * action required in paragraph (g)(2) of meet to demonstrate continuous
(2) * * * this section was not successful, you compliance?
(i) Computing and recording the 30- must report the exceedance as a (a) Deviations. Except as provided in
day rolling average of the volatile deviation in your next semiannual § 63.7833(g), you must report each
organic compound emissions for each compliance report according to instance in which you did not meet
operating day according to the § 63.7841(b). each emission limitation in § 63.7790
performance test procedures in ■ 13. Section 63.7834 is amended by that applies to you. * * *
§ 63.7824(e); revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: * * * * *
* * * * * § 63.7834 How do I demonstrate ■ 15. Section 63.7851 is amended by
(g) If the hourly average pressure drop continuous compliance with the operation revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
or water flow rate for a venturi scrubber and maintenance requirements that apply to follows:
or hourly average opacity for an me?
electrostatic precipitator exceeds the (a) For each capture system and § 63.7851 Who implements and enforces
operating limit, you must follow the control device subject to an operating this subpart?
procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through limit in § 63.7790(b), you must * * * * *
(4) of this section. demonstrate continuous compliance (c) * * *
(1) You must initiate corrective action with the operation and maintenance (2) Approval of major alternatives to
to determine the cause of the requirements in § 63.7800(b) by meeting test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and
exceedance within 1 hour. During any the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) (f) and as defined in § 63.90, except for
period of corrective action, you must through (4) of this section: approval of an alternative method for
continue to monitor and record all (1) Making monthly inspections of the oil content of the sinter plant
required operating parameters for capture systems and initiating corrective feedstock or volatile organic compound
equipment that remains in operation. action according to § 63.7800(b)(1) and measurements for the sinter plant
Within 24 hours of the exceedance, you recording all information needed to windbox exhaust stream stack as
must measure and record the hourly document conformance with these provided in § 63.7824(f).
average operating parameter value for requirements; * * * * *
the emission unit on which corrective (2) Performing preventative
action was taken. If the hourly average ■ 16. Section 63.7852 is amended by
maintenance according to
parameter value meets the applicable § 63.7800(b)(2) and recording all revising the definition of term ‘‘Ladle
operating limit, then the corrective information needed to document metallurgy’’ to read as follows:
action was successful and the emission conformance with these requirements; § 63.7852 What definitions apply to this
unit is in compliance with the (3) Initiating and completing subpart?
applicable operating limit. corrective action for a baghouse * * * * *
(2) If the initial corrective action equipped with a bag leak detection
Ladle metallurgy means a secondary
required in paragraph (g)(1) of this system or COMS according to
steelmaking process that is performed
section was not successful, you must § 63.7800(b)(4) and recording all
typically in a ladle after initial refining
complete additional corrective action information needed to document
in a basic oxygen process furnace to
within the next 24 hours (48 hours from conformance with these requirements,
adjust or amend the chemical and/or
the time of the exceedance). During any including the time you initiated
mechanical properties of steel. This
period of corrective action, you must corrective action, the corrective
definition does not include vacuum
continue to monitor and record all action(s) taken, and date on which
degassing.
required operating parameters for corrective action was completed.
equipment that remains in operation. (4) Initiating and completing * * * * *
After this second 24-hour period, you corrective action for a venturi scrubber ■ 17. Table 1 to subpart FFFFF of part
must again measure and record the equipped with a CPMS or an 63 is amended by revising entries 3, 5,
hourly average operating parameter electrostatic precipitator equipped with 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11; and by revising the
value for the emission unit on which a COMS according to § 63.7833(g) and footnotes to read as follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS

* * * * * * *
For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . .
* * * * * * *
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant .................................... a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from one or more control devices that contain, on a flow-
weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf 1 2; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any sec-
ondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure
housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater than 20 per-
cent (6-minute average).
* * * * * * *
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant ....................................... You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emis-
sions that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute aver-
age).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plant .............................................. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace ....................................... a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 0.01 gr/dscf 2; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any sec-
ondary emissions that exit any opening in the casthouse or structure
housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent
(6-minute average).
* * * * * * *
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing shop ................................................. a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with a
closed hood system at a new or existing BOPF shop that contain, on
a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf
during the primary oxygen blow 2 3; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with an
open hood system that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf during the steel production cycle for
an existing BOPF shop 2 3 or 0.01 gr/dscf during the steel production
cycle for a new BOPF shop 3; and
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a control device used solely for the collection of sec-
ondary emissions from the BOPF that contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.0052 gr/dscf
for a new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and desulfurization operation at You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
a new or existing BOPF shop. that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.003 gr/dscf for
a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop .... You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.004 gr/dscf for
a new BOPF shop.
* * * * * * *
1 This
limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control device as the discharge end.
2 This
concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the discharge end at
an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop if the control device was installed before
August 30, 2005.
3 This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a single BOPF during the oxygen blow.
■ 18. Table 2 to subpart FFFFF of part

63 is amended by revising entries 5 and
6 to read as follows:
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS
* * * * * * *
For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS—Continued
* * * * * * *
For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
* * * * * * *
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant ....................................... The opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance
test procedures in § 63.7823(e), did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute
average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plant .............................................. The average concentration of particulate matter, measured according
to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(b), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf.
* * * * * * *
■ 19. Table 3 to subpart FFFFF of part

63 is revised to read as follows:
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS
[As required in § 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the following table.]
For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter plant ................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.4 lb/ton of
product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies speci-
fied in § 63.7821.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter plant ........................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.3 lb/ton of
product sinter; and
fied in § 63.7821.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant .................................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control
devices at or below 0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any open-
ing in the building or structure housing the discharge end at or below
20 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies speci-
fied in § 63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant ........................................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control
devices at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and
ing in the building or structure housing the discharge end at or below
fied in § 63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant ....................................... a. Maintaining the opacity of emissions that exit any sinter cooler at or
below 10 percent (6-minute average); and
fied in § 63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plant .............................................. a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.1 gr/dscf;
and
fied in § 63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace ....................................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at
or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and
ing in the casthouse or structure housing the casthouse at or below
fied in § 63.7821.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace ............................................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at
or below 0.003 gr/dscf; and
ing in the casthouse or structure housing the casthouse at or below
fied in § 63.7821.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing BOPF shop ..................................... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control
system for a BOPF with a closed hood system at or below 0.03 gr/
dscf; and
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS—
Continued
[As required in § 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the following table.]
For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
b. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control

system for a BOPF with an open hood system at or below 0.02 gr/
dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop; and
c. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device ap-
plied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF at or below 0.01
gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop; and
d. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies speci-
fied in § 63.7821.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and desulfurization operation at a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at
a new or existing BOPF shop. or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF; and
fied in § 63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop .... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at
or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/dscf for
a new BOPF shop; and
fied in § 63.7821.
12. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF shop .................................... a. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any open-
ing in the BOPF shop or other building housing the BOPF shop or
shop operation at or below 20 percent (3-minute average); and
fied in § 63.7821.
13. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop ............................................ a. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of sec-
ondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown BOPF or shop operation at or
below 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period greater than 10
percent but no more than 20 percent may occur once per steel pro-
duction cycle; and
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) of sec-
ondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF or shop operation at or below 10
percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle; and
fied in § 63.7821.
■ 20. Table 4 to subpart FFFFF of part ■ b. By adding entries § 63.6(i) and ■ c. By revising entries §§ 63.8 through
63 is amended as follows: § 63.6(j). 63.10.
■ a. By revising entry § 63.6(h)(2)(i). * * * * *
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFFF

* * * * * * *
Citation Subject Applies to Subpart FFFFF Explanation
* * * * * * *
§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) ................................. Determining Compliance with No .................................................. Subpart FFFFF specifies methods
Opacity and VE Standards. and procedures for determining
compliance with opacity emis-
sion and operating limits.
§ 63.6(i) ......................................... Extension of Compliance with Yes.
Emission Standards.
§ 63.6(j) ......................................... Exemption from Compliance with Yes.
Emission Standards.
* * * * * * *
§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3), (b), (c)(1)–(3), Monitoring Requirements .............. Yes ................................................ CMS requirements in
(c)(4)(i)–(ii), (c)(5)–(6), (c)(7)– §§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii), (c)(5)–(6),

(8), (f)(1)–(5), (g)(1)–(4). (d), and (e) apply only to
COMS.
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFFF—Continued

* * * * * * *
Citation Subject Applies to Subpart FFFFF Explanation
§ 63.8(a)(4) .................................... Additional Monitoring Require- No .................................................. Subpart FFFFF does not require
ments for Control Devices in flares.
§ 63.11.
§ 63.8(c)(4) .................................... Continuous Monitoring System No .................................................. Subpart FFFFF specifies require-
Requirements. ments for operation of CMS.
§ 63.8(f)(6) ..................................... RATA Alternative .......................... No.
§ 63.8(g)(5) .................................... Data Reduction ............................. No .................................................. Subpart FFFFF specifies data re-
duction requirements.
§ 63.9 ............................................. Notification Requirements ............. Yes ................................................ Additional notifications for CMS in
§ 63.9(g) apply only to COMS.
§ 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)–(xii), Recordkeeping and Reporting Re- Yes ................................................ Additional records for CMS in
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)–(6), quirements. § 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)–(15), and
(c)(9)–(15), (d), (e)(1)–(2), reports in § 63.10(d)(1)–(2)
(e)(4), (f). apply only to COMS.
§ 63.10(b)(2) (xiii) .......................... CMS Records for RATA Alter- No.
native.
§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............................ Records of Excess Emissions and No .................................................. Subpart FFFFF specifies record
Parameter Monitoring requirements.
Exceedances for CMS.
§ 63.10(e)(3) .................................. Excess Emission Reports ............. No .................................................. Subpart FFFFF specifies reporting
requirements
* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 06–6174 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am] Commission documents, is available for amended by the Designated Entity
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P public inspection and copying from 8 Second Report and Order consistent
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 1995. See Public Information Collection
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS on Friday at the FCC Reference Approved by Office of Management and
COMMISSION Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Budget, 71 FR 34935, June 16, 2006.
Street, SW., Room CY–A257, In FR Doc. 06–4257 published on May
47 CFR Part 1 Washington, DC 20554. The Erratum 4, 2006, (71 FR 26245) make the
and Notice of Office of Management and following corrections. On page 26250, in
[WT Docket No. 05–211; DA 06–1280]
Budget Approval of Information the third column, paragraph 52 is
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Collections and related Commission corrected to read as follows:
Act and Modernization of the documents may also be purchased from Accordingly, it is ordered, that, pursuant to
Commission’s Competitive Bidding the Commission’s duplicating sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the
Rules and Procedures contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), the
AGENCY: Federal Communications Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, Second Report and Order is hereby adopted
Commission. telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile and Part 1 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
Part 1, is amended as set forth in Appendix
ACTION: Final rule; correction. 202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI B, effective 30 days after publication in the
at its Web site: http:// Federal Register, except for the
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications www.BCPIWEB.com. grandfathering provisions, which are
Commission published in the Federal
On April 25, 2006, the Federal effective upon release. The Commission will
Register of May 4, 2006, a document not conduct or sponsor any new or modified
Communications Commission
that included new or modified information collections required pursuant to
(Commission) released a Second Report
information collections. This document Sections 1.913(a)(6); 1.913(b); 1.919(b)(5);
and Order and Second Further Notice of
corrects the ordering clause in 1.2105(a)(2)(ii)(B); 1.2110(b)(1)(i) and (ii);
Proposed Rule Making (Designated 1.2110(j) and (n); 1.2111(a), (b), and (c)(2)
paragraph 52.
Entity Second Report and Order), 71 FR and (3); 1.2112(b)(1)(iii) and (iv), and (2)(iii),
DATES: Effective June 16, 2006. 26245, May 4, 2006. The Designated (v) and (vii); and 1.2114(b), (f), and (g) of the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Entity Second Report and Order amended rules adopted herein until approval
Brian Carter, Auction and Spectrum included new or modified information by the Office of Management and Budget
Access Division, Wireless collections. The Erratum and Notice of (OMB) has been obtained under the
Telecommunications Bureau at (202) Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.
418–0660. Approval of Information Collections 104–13. The Commission will publish notice
in the Federal Register announcing such
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a (Erratum) corrects paragraph 103 of the OMB approval.
summary of the Erratum and Notice of Designated Entity Second Report and
Office of Management and Budget Order, which appeared as paragraph 52 Federal Communications Commission.
Approval of Information Collections in the Federal Register of May 4, 2006. Gary D. Michaels,
released on June 16, 2006. The complete The Commission may conduct the Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access
text of the Erratum and Notice of Office information collections required by Division, WTB.
of Management and Budget Approval of §§ 1.2105(a)(2)(ii)(B), 1.2110(b)(1)(i) and [FR Doc. E6–11050 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
Information Collections and related (ii), and 1.2112(b)(1)(iii) and (iv), as BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 39579

* * * * * new compliance option, revise emission www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

NAICS Examples of regulated

this section. specific monitoring plan in accordance

newly designated paragraph (c)(3);

according to the requirements in (e) * * * ■ 12. Section 63.7833 is amended by:

* * * * * corrective action procedures in

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS

For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . .

■ 18. Table 2 to subpart FFFFF of part

For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .

For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .

■ 19. Table 3 to subpart FFFFF of part

For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .

For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .

b. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFFF

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart FFFFF Explanation

(c)(4)(i)–(ii), (c)(5)–(6), (c)(7)– §§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii), (c)(5)–(6),

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFFF—Continued

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart FFFFF Explanation

Você também pode gostar