6510 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0236; FRL–8766–6] 

RIN 2060–AO93 

Revision of Source Category List for 

Standards Under Section 112(k) of the 

Clean Air Act; National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Area Source Standards for 

Aluminum, Copper, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revising the area 

source category list by changing the 

name of the ‘‘Secondary Aluminum 

Production’’ category to ‘‘Aluminum 

Foundries’’ and the ‘‘Nonferrous 

Foundries, not elsewhere classified 

(nec)’’ category to ‘‘Other Nonferrous 

Foundries.’’ At the same time, EPA is 

proposing national emission standards 

for the Aluminum Foundries, Copper 

Foundries, and Other Nonferrous 

Foundries area source categories. These 

proposed emission standards for new 

and existing sources reflect EPA’s 

proposed determination regarding the 

generally available control technology 

or management practices for each area 

source category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2009 unless a public 

hearing is requested by February 19, 

2009. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rule, written comments must 

be received by March 26, 2009. Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before March 11, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0236, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0236. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: 202– 

566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0236. 

• Mail: Send your comments to: Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0236. Please 

include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to EPA Docket Center, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket Center’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0236. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and will be made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the proposed standards 

for aluminum foundries, contact Mr. 

David Cole, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Outreach and 

Information Division, Regulatory 

Development and Policy Analysis 

Group (C404–05), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; Telephone Number: 

(919) 541–5565; Fax Number: (919) 

541–0242; E-mail address: 

Cole.David@epa.gov. For questions 

about the proposed standards for copper 

foundries and other nonferrous 

foundries, contact Mr. Gary Blais, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Outreach and Information Division, 

Regulatory Development and Policy 

Analysis Group (C404–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

Telephone Number: (919) 541–3223; 

Fax Number: (919) 541–0242; E-mail 

address: Blais.Gary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Revision to the Source Category List 

III. Background Information for the Proposed 

Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

B. What source categories are affected by 

the proposed standards? 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available controls? 

IV. Summary of the Proposed Standards 

A. Do these proposed standards apply to 

my facility? 

B. When must I comply with the proposed 

standards? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

D. What are the compliance requirements? 

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements? 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6511 

1This is a change in name only and in no way 

affects the scope or coverage of the source category. 

Nonferrous foundries not elsewhere classified (nec) 

are simply those foundries melting nonferrous 

metals other than copper and aluminum. Copper 

and aluminum foundries were assigned their own 

unique SIC and NAICS codes. 

2Memorandum from Barbara Driscoll to Docket 

Number OAR–2002–0036 (Docket for Final 

Revision of Area Source Category List Under 

Sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(iii) of the Clean 

Air Act). ‘‘Basis for Determination of New Area 

Source Categories Listed for Future Regulatory 

Development on November 22, 2002.’’ Docket Item 

IV–B–11. 

V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source 

categories? 

B. How did we select the affected source? 

C. How are the aluminum foundry HAP, 

the copper foundry HAP, and the other 

nonferrous foundry HAP addressed by 

this proposed rule? 

D. How did we determine GACT? 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

F. How did we decide to propose to 

exempt these area source categories from 

title V permit requirements? 

VI. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards include: 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry: 

Aluminum Foundries ........... 331524 Area source facilities that pour molten aluminum into molds to manufacture aluminum castings 

(excluding die casting). 

Copper Foundries ............... 331525 Area source facilities that pour molten copper and copper-based alloys (e.g., brass, bronze) into 

molds to manufacture copper and copper-based alloy castings (excluding die casting). 

Other Nonferrous Foundries 331528 Area source facilities that pour molten nonferrous metals (except aluminum and copper) into 

molds to manufacture nonferrous castings (excluding die casting). Establishments in this industry purchase nonferrous metals, such as nickel, zinc, and magnesium that are made in other 

establishments. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.11544 of subpart ZZZZZZ 

(National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 

Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and 

Other Nonferrous Foundries). If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA Regional representative, as listed in 

40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0236. Clearly mark the part 

or all of the information that you claim 

to be CBI. For CBI contained in a disk 

or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

the proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning the 

proposed rule by February 19, 2009, we 

will hold a public hearing on February 

24, 2009. If you are interested in 

attending the public hearing, contact 

Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 541–5590 

to verify that a hearing will be held. If 

a public hearing is held, it will be held 

at EPA’s campus located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive in Research Triangle 

Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. 

II. Revision to the Source Category List 

This notice announces a revision to 

the area source category list developed 

under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revision 

changes the name of the ‘‘Secondary 

Aluminum Production’’ source category 

to ‘‘Aluminum Foundries’’. The revision 

also changes the name of the 

‘‘Nonferrous Foundries, nec’’ source 

category to ‘‘Other Nonferrous 

Foundries.’’ 1

We are proposing to change the name 

of the ‘‘Secondary Aluminum 

Production’’ source category because we 

incorrectly named the category in the 

notice adding ‘‘Secondary Aluminum 

Production’’ to our list of area source 

categories (66 FR 8220, January 20, 

2001). Upon identifying the error, we 

prepared a memorandum explaining the 

error.2 The memorandum stated that the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3Note that most secondary aluminum facilities 

are major sources and are subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR. These facilities recycle aluminum 

scrap and do not produce foundry castings. 

listing of the ‘‘Secondary Aluminum 

Production’’ category was not based on 

secondary aluminum facilities, but 

rather on the emissions from a different 

source category—‘‘Aluminum 

Foundries.’’ In addition, background 

documentation for the 1990 emissions 

inventory, from which the source 

category listed in the Integrated Urban 

Air Toxics Strategy was derived, states 

that the contribution of aluminum 

foundries to the CAA section 112(k) 

inventory of urban hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) was based on the 1990 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for 

facilities reporting under Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3365 

(‘‘aluminum foundries except die 

casting’’) and the obsolete SIC code 

3361 (‘‘aluminum foundries— 

castings’’).3 We are therefore changing 

the name of the ‘‘Secondary Aluminum 

Production’’ source category to 

‘‘Aluminum Foundries’’, which is 

consistent with the inventory and the 

record supporting our original listing 

decision. 

We also are revising the name of the 

‘‘Nonferrous Foundries, nec’’ category to 

‘‘Other Nonferrous Foundries’’ to clarify 

that the source category includes all 

nonferrous foundries except aluminum 

foundries and copper foundries. This 

change has no impact on the type of 

sources included in the category or on 

the scope of the category. 

III. Background Information for the 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us 

to establish national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for both major and area sources of HAP 

that are listed for regulation under CAA 

section 112(c). A major source emits or 

has the potential to emit 10 tons per 

year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 

25 tpy or more of any combination of 

HAP. An area source is a stationary 

source that is not a major source. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that, 

as the result of emissions from area 

sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. EPA implemented this 

provision in 1999 in the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, 

July 19, 1999). In the Strategy, EPA 

identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas; 

these HAP are referred to as the ‘‘30 

urban HAP.’’ Section 112(c)(3) requires 

EPA to list sufficient categories or 

subcategories of area sources to ensure 

that area sources representing 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP are subject to regulation. We 

implemented these requirements 

through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A 

primary goal of the Strategy is to 

achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 

incidence attributable to HAP emitted 

from stationary sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technology or 

management practices (GACT) by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional 

information on GACT is found in the 

Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101–228, December 20, 

1989), which describes GACT as 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

these, that have a majority of firms 

classified as small businesses according 

to the Small Business Administration 

standards in 13 CFR 121.201. Small 

businesses for the three foundry source 

categories that are the subject of this 

proposed rule are those with fewer than 

500 employees. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. However, we did not 

identify any major sources in these three 

source categories. 

Under appropriate circumstances, we 

may also consider technologies and 

practices at area and major sources in 

similar categories to determine whether 

such technologies and practices could 

be considered generally available for the 

area source category at issue. Finally, as 

noted above, in determining GACT for 

a particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

We are proposing these three foundry 

national emission standards in response 

to a court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to issue standards for source 

categories listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k) by June 15, 2009 

(Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. 01–1537, 

D.D.C., March 2006). 

B. What source categories are affected 

by the proposed standards? 

1. Overview of the Three Source 

Categories 

Aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries all produce 

castings of nonferrous metals that are 

used in products that require specific 

mechanical properties, machinability, 

and/or corrosion resistance. Aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

account for approximately 16 percent by 

weight of all foundry castings (iron and 

steel foundries account for the other 84 

percent). Aluminum and aluminum 

alloy castings account for 11 percent 

compared to 2 percent for copper and 

copper alloy castings and 3 percent for 

other nonferrous castings. Usually, these 

nonferrous metals are cast in 

combinations with each other or with 

some of about 40 other elements to 

make many different nonferrous alloys. 

A few of the more common nonferrous 

alloys are brass, bronze, magnesium, 

nickel-copper alloys (Monel); nickelchromium-iron alloys; aluminumcopper alloys; aluminum-silicon alloys; 

aluminum-magnesium alloys; and 

titanium alloys. Aluminum, copper, and 

other nonferrous foundries are much 

smaller emitters of particulate matter 

(PM) and metal HAP than iron and steel 

foundries, which typically melt much 

larger quantities of metal on a per 

facility basis. 

Most of the aluminum, copper, and 

other nonferrous foundries in the 

United States are small businesses 

according to the Small Business 

Administration size classifications (less 

than 500 employees), and about 70 

percent of the facilities employ fewer 

than 50 people. Conversely, only 11 

foundries (1 percent of the total) employ 

500 or more people, and all of these are 

aluminum foundries. Although most 

foundries manufacture castings for sale 

to other companies, an important 

exception is the relatively few ‘‘captive’’ 

foundries operated by large original 

equipment manufacturers, such as 

automobile manufacturers. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6513 

4Aluminum die casters are included under the 

SIC code 3363 and NAICS 331521 and are defined 

as establishments primarily engaged in introducing 

molten aluminum, under high pressure, into molds 

or dies to make aluminum die castings. 

2. Aluminum Foundries 

The area source category ‘‘Aluminum 

Foundries’’ is comprised of facilities 

that pour molten aluminum into molds 

to manufacture aluminum castings. The 

relevant North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code is 

331524 and is identified as ‘‘aluminum 

foundries except die casting.’’ 4 This 

source category was improperly listed 

under the name ‘‘Secondary Aluminum 

Production’’ (66 FR 8220, January 20, 

2001). As discussed in section II of this 

preamble, we are revising the area 

source category list to correct the name 

of the category. The category is properly 

labeled ‘‘Aluminum Foundries,’’ and as 

the 2001 listing decision reflects, the 

category was listed due to emissions of 

the urban HAP beryllium, cadmium, 

lead compounds, manganese, and nickel 

(the ‘‘aluminum foundry HAP’’). 

Information on aluminum foundries 

that classify themselves as primarily in 

NAICS 331524 is available from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, whose most recent 

census survey (2002) identified 542 

aluminum foundries. The industry is 

characterized by many small businesses, 

with 154 plants (28 percent) having only 

one to four employees, and 531 plants 

(98 percent) having fewer than 500 

employees. 

3. Copper Foundries 

The area source category ‘‘Copper 

Foundries’’ is comprised of facilities 

that pour molten copper and copperbased alloys into molds to manufacture 

copper and copper-based alloy castings 

(excluding die casting). Copper 

foundries in the 2002 census survey 

produce a wide variety of castings, 

including copper and copper-based 

alloys, brass, engineered copper alloy 

(i.e., manganese bronze, silicon brass 

and bronze, aluminum bronze, and 

copper nickel), tin bronze, and red and 

semi-red brass. EPA listed the Copper 

Foundries area source category in the 

Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (67 

FR 70427, November 22, 2002) due to 

emissions of the urban HAP lead 

compounds, manganese, and nickel (the 

‘‘copper foundry HAP’’). 

The NAICS code for copper foundries 

is 331525 (‘‘copper foundries except die 

casting’’). Information on copper 

foundries that classify themselves as 

primarily in NAICS 331525 is also 

available from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

whose most recent census survey (2002) 

identified 281 copper foundries. The 

copper foundry industry consists of 

small businesses, with 80 plants (28 

percent) having only one to four 

employees, and all of the plants having 

fewer than 250 employees. 

4. Nonferrous Foundries 

The area source category ‘‘Other 

Nonferrous Foundries’’ is comprised of 

facilities that pour molten nonferrous 

metals (excluding aluminum, copper, 

and copper-based alloys) into molds to 

manufacture nonferrous metal castings 

(excluding die casting). Nonferrous 

foundries in the 2002 census survey 

produce a variety of nonferrous metal 

castings, including nickel and nickelbased alloys, zinc and zinc-based alloys, 

and magnesium and magnesium-based 

alloys. EPA listed ‘‘Nonferrous 

Foundries, nec’’ in the Integrated Urban 

Air Toxics Strategy (67 FR 70427, 

November 22, 2002) due to emissions of 

the urban HAP chromium, lead 

compounds, and nickel (the ‘‘other 

nonferrous foundry HAP’’). As 

explained in section II of this preamble, 

we are changing the name of the 

‘‘Nonferrous Foundries, nec’’ area 

source category to ‘‘Other Nonferrous 

Foundries’’ to clarify that the source 

category includes all nonferrous 

foundries except aluminum and copper 

foundries. 

The NAICS code for nonferrous 

foundries is 331528 (‘‘other nonferrous 

foundries except die casting’’). 

Information on nonferrous foundries 

that classify themselves as primarily in 

NAICS 331528 is also available from the 

U.S. Census Bureau, whose most recent 

census survey (2002) identified 143 

nonferrous foundries. The nonferrous 

foundry industry is also characterized 

by many small businesses, with 51 

plants (36 percent) having only one to 

four employees and all of the plants 

having fewer than 500 employees. 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available 

controls? 

1. Production Operations 

The processes used at aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

are similar; the primary difference is the 

type of metal that is melted and cast. 

Foundries produce complex metal 

shapes by melting the metal in a furnace 

and pouring the molten metal into a 

mold to solidify into the desired shape. 

Foundry processes include: (1) Melting 

metal ingot, alloyed ingot, scrap, or a 

combination in a melting furnace; (2) 

alloying the molten metal (if necessary); 

(3) pouring the molten metal into a 

mold where it forms the desired shape, 

cools, and solidifies (this process is also 

referred to as casting); (4) removing the 

cast from the mold; (5) cleaning (e.g., 

shot blasting, grinding); and (6) 

finishing the casting surface. Foundries 

using sand casting may also have 

facilities that prepare sand molds and 

cores onsite. 

The metal HAP emissions that were 

used as the basis for the 1990 inventory 

are emitted from the melting furnaces, 

where solid metal (e.g., ingot, scrap, 

alloys) is heated to high temperatures to 

produce molten metal. The most 

common types of melting furnaces used 

at aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries are reverberatory 

(more common for aluminum 

foundries), crucible, and induction 

furnaces. Gas-fired (and sometimes oilfired) reverberatory furnaces heat the 

metal to melting temperatures with 

direct-fired, wall-mounted burners. 

These furnaces are brick-lined and 

constructed with a curved roof. The 

term ‘‘reverberatory’’ is used because 

heat rising from ignited fuel is reflected 

(reverberated) back down from the 

curved furnace roof and into the melted 

charge. A typical reverberatory furnace 

has an enclosed melt area where the 

flame heat source operates directly 

above the molten metal. Reverberatory 

furnaces have capacities ranging from 1 

to 150 tons of molten metal. The 

advantages of reverberatory melters are 

the high-volume processing rate and 

low operating and maintenance costs. 

The disadvantages are the high metal 

oxidation rates, low efficiencies, and 

large floor space requirements. 

Gas-fired crucible furnaces are smallcapacity indirect melters and holders 

typically used for small melting 

applications or exclusively as a holding 

furnace. The metal is placed or poured 

into a ceramic crucible, which is 

contained in a circular furnace and is 

fired by a gas burner. The energy is 

applied indirectly to the metal by 

heating the crucible. The advantages of 

crucible furnaces are their ability to 

change alloys quickly, their low 

oxidation losses, and their low 

maintenance costs. Disadvantages 

include low efficiency and size 

limitations. 

There are two general types of 

induction furnaces: Channel and 

coreless. Channel furnaces use an 

electromagnetic field to heat the metal 

between two coils and induce a flowing 

pattern of the molten metal, which 

serves to maintain uniform temperatures 

without mechanical stirring. Coreless 

furnaces heat the metal via an external 

primary coil and are slightly less 

efficient than channel furnaces, but 

their melt capacity per unit floor area is 

much higher. Channel furnaces are used 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

5As discussed in more detail later in this 

preamble, none of the 111 aluminum melting 

furnaces identified in our survey of nine companies 

had PM control devices, and our review of 

operating permits for 36 aluminum foundries with 

297 melting furnaces showed that only two 

foundries with 12 of the 297 melting furnaces (4 

percent) had PM control devices. 

almost exclusively as holding furnaces, 

while coreless furnaces are used mainly 

for melting finely shredded scrap, where 

they are most cost competitive with gasfired furnaces. The advantages of 

induction furnaces include high melting 

efficiency, low emissions, low metal 

oxidation losses, and high alloy 

uniformity due to increased mixing. 

Their disadvantages relate primarily to 

their high capital and operating costs. 

Induction furnaces range in size from 

very small to 7.5 tons per melt. 

Tower furnaces are less common than 

the furnaces discussed above. In tower 

furnaces, metal ingot and scrap are 

loaded from the top of a vertical tower, 

and burners at the bottom of the tower 

melt the metal. The advantages of the 

tower furnaces are high efficiency and 

low oxidation losses. The disadvantages 

of tower furnaces are their high capital 

costs and the furnace size, which is 

restricted by height limitations. 

2. Emission Sources and Available 

Controls 

Melting furnaces at aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

are the emission sources of the HAP for 

which these area source categories were 

listed. Emissions of HAP metals from 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries are directly related 

to the quantity of trace HAP metals that 

enter with the scrap and ingot that is 

charged to the melting furnaces. We 

collected industry survey data, reviewed 

operating permits, and held discussions 

with industry and trade association 

representatives to identify potential 

control technologies and management 

practices for these source categories. We 

identified two primary methods to 

control metal HAP emissions from 

foundries: (1) Management practices 

(i.e., specifications that limit the amount 

of metal HAP in charge materials, and 

suppression techniques, such as covers) 

and (2) add-on pollution control 

devices, such as baghouses. Our review 

indicated that most foundries already 

use management practices, often as part 

of their standard operating procedures, 

to reduce emissions of PM and metal 

HAP. Typical management practices 

include using covers or enclosures on 

melting furnaces when they are melting; 

using clean scrap; defining 

specifications for charge materials (e.g., 

specified range for lead, certified ingot); 

and monitoring melting and pouring 

temperature. 

The vast majority 5 of melting 

furnaces at aluminum foundries are not 

equipped with emission control devices 

for PM, which may be attributed to 

differences in certain physical 

properties and characteristics of melting 

aluminum compared to melting copper 

and other nonferrous metals. For 

example, melting aluminum may result 

in lower emissions compared to the 

other nonferrous metals for several 

reasons. Higher melting temperatures 

result in higher emissions of PM and 

greater volatilization of HAP metals. 

Aluminum melts at approximately 1,200 

°F, whereas copper melts at about 2,000 

°F, nickel melts at 2,650 °F, and iron 

and steel melt at 2,300 to 2,800 °F. In 

addition, most aluminum foundries 

melt aluminum ingot, alloyed ingot, and 

internal scrap that is recycled, all of 

which typically have very low 

concentrations of HAP metals. From our 

survey of aluminum foundries, we 

found that the materials charged to the 

melting furnaces contained, on average, 

only 0.4 percent of the urban HAP for 

which the source category was listed. In 

contrast, some copper-based alloys, 

such as leaded brass, contain up to 3.5 

percent lead. 

Melting furnaces for copper, copperbased alloys (primarily brass and 

bronze), and other nonferrous metals 

also use management practices to 

control emissions. In addition, many of 

the melting furnaces at copper and other 

nonferrous foundries, especially at the 

larger foundries, are equipped with 

baghouses or cartridge filters to control 

emissions of PM and metal HAP. 

IV. Summary of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. Do these proposed standards apply 

to my facility? 

The proposed standards would apply 

to all existing or new melting operations 

(the affected source), including all of the 

various types of melting furnaces, at an 

aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous 

foundry that meets certain applicability 

criteria. A melting operation is an 

existing affected source if construction 

or reconstruction of the melting 

operation commenced on or before 

February 9, 2009. A melting operation is 

a new affected source if construction or 

reconstruction of the melting operation 

commences after February 9, 2009. 

The proposed standards apply to each 

aluminum foundry, copper foundry, or 

other nonferrous foundry that: (1) Is an 

area source; (2) uses material that 

contains or has the potential to emit 

HAP for which the source category was 

listed (i.e., ‘‘aluminum foundry HAP’’, 

‘‘copper foundry HAP’’, and ‘‘other 

nonferrous foundry HAP’’; and (3) melts 

600 tpy or greater of metal. Any material 

that contains beryllium, cadmium, lead, 

or nickel in amounts greater than or 

equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the 

metal), or contains manganese in 

amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 

percent by weight (as the metal), would 

be considered a ‘‘material containing 

aluminum foundry HAP’’. Any material 

that contains lead or nickel in amounts 

greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 

weight (as the metal), or contains 

manganese in amounts greater than or 

equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the 

metal) would be considered to be a 

‘‘material containing copper foundry 

HAP.’’ Any material that contains 

chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts 

greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 

weight (as the metal) would be 

considered to be a ‘‘material containing 

other nonferrous foundry HAP.’’ As 

explained in more detail in section V.A 

of this preamble, we are using elemental 

lead in the charge materials as a 

surrogate for lead compounds because 

the elemental lead is emitted from the 

melting furnace as lead compounds. 

Facilities could determine whether 

material contains the target HAP by 

using formulation data provided by the 

manufacturer or supplier, such as the 

material safety data sheet. The proposed 

definitions of these terms are consistent 

with the definitions used in standards 

developed for other area source 

categories such as Plating and Polishing 

(73 FR 37728, July 1, 2008), Metal 

Fabrication and Finishing (73 FR 42978, 

July 23, 2008) and as defined by OSHA 

at 29 CFR 1910.1200 (i.e., a 

concentration of 0.1 percent or more for 

carcinogens and 1.0 percent or more for 

non-carcinogens). 

The proposed standards would not 

apply to research and development 

facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) 

of the CAA, because these facilities were 

not part of the 1990 inventory. 

B. When must I comply with the 

proposed standards? 

The owner or operator of an existing 

source would be required to comply 

with the rule no later than 2 years after 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. The owner or 

operator of a new source would be 

required to Federal Register or startup 

of the facility, whichever is later. 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

We are proposing that the following 

management practices are GACT for 

new and existing sources at aluminum, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6515 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries: 

(1) Cover or enclose melting furnaces 

that are equipped with covers or 

enclosures during the melting process, 

to the extent practicable (e.g., except 

when access is needed, such as for 

charging, alloy addition, tapping); and 

(2) purchase and use only scrap material 

that has been depleted (to the extent 

practicable) of ‘‘aluminum foundry 

HAP,’’ ‘‘copper foundry HAP’’, or ‘‘other 

nonferrous foundry HAP’’ (as 

applicable) in the materials charged to 

the melting furnace, excluding HAP 

metals that are required to be added for 

the production of alloyed castings. We 

are further proposing that facilities 

develop and retain and operate by a 

written management practices plan for 

minimizing emissions from melting 

operations that documents how the 

required management practices (and any 

other management practices in use) are 

to be implemented. 

The owner or operator of a new or 

existing source at a copper foundry or 

other nonferrous foundry that melts at 

least 6,000 tpy of metal would be 

required to comply with emission limits 

as described below. In setting the 

proposed emission limits, we are using 

PM as a surrogate for the metal HAP 

emissions. We are proposing that GACT 

for existing affected sources is achieving 

a PM control efficiency of at least 95.0 

percent or an outlet PM concentration of 

at most 0.015 grains per dry standard 

cubic feet (gr/dscf). We are proposing 

that GACT for new affected sources is 

achieving a PM control efficiency of at 

least 99.0 percent or an outlet PM 

concentration of at most of 0.010 gr/ 

dscf. 

D. What are the compliance 

requirements? 

1. Performance Test 

The owner or operator of any existing 

or new source subject to a PM emissions 

limit would be required to conduct a 

one-time initial performance test. The 

owner or operator would be required to 

test PM emissions from melting 

operations using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–3) or EPA Method 

17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6). 

A performance test is not required for 

an existing affected source if a prior 

performance test has been conducted 

within the past 5 years using the 

methods required by this proposed rule, 

which are the methods required in 

§ 63.11151 of proposed subpart 

ZZZZZZ, and either no process changes 

had been made since the test, or the 

owner or operator can demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the permitting 

authority that the results of the 

performance test, with or without 

adjustments, reliably demonstrate 

compliance despite process changes. 

2. Monitoring Requirements 

The owner or operator of new or 

existing source would be required to 

record information to document 

conformance with the management 

practices plan. The proposed 

recordkeeping requirements are 

described in section IV.E of this 

preamble. 

For existing sources where emissions 

are controlled by a fabric filter, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

conduct and record the results of daily 

observations of visible emissions (VE) 

from the monovent or fabric filter outlet 

stack(s) during melting operations. 

Should any of the daily observations 

reveal any VE, the owner or operator 

must initiate corrective action to 

determine the cause of the VE within 1 

hour and alleviate the cause of the 

emissions within 3 hours of the 

observations by taking whatever 

corrective actions are necessary. 

The foundry would have the option to 

decrease the frequency of observations 

from daily to weekly if the foundry 

collects at least 90 consecutive 

operating days of observations with no 

VE. If, after the foundry converts to a 

weekly schedule, any VE is observed, 

the foundry would be required to revert 

to a daily schedule until another 

consecutive 90 operating days of data 

are obtained that demonstrate there was 

no VE during the period observed. 

Then, the foundry may convert to a 

weekly observation schedule. We are 

requesting comment on whether the 

requirement for an initial period of 90 

consecutive days of VE observations is 

appropriate and whether some other 

period of time would be adequate to 

establish consistent performance of the 

baghouse before reducing to weekly 

observations. As an alternative to the VE 

observations, an owner or operator of an 

existing source may elect to operate and 

maintain a bag leak detection system as 

described below for new sources. 

The owner or operator of new source 

equipped with a fabric filter would be 

required to operate and maintain a bag 

leak detection system and prepare a sitespecific monitoring plan. The owner or 

operator of existing sources would have 

the option of complying with the bag 

leak detection system requirements as 

an alternative to the daily (or weekly) 

visual inspections. 

Our study of the industry indicates 

that fabric filters are used as the control 

device for melting furnaces; however, it 

is conceivable that there is an existing 

foundry that does or could use some 

other type of control device to meet the 

PM emission standard. If a copper or 

other nonferrous foundry uses a control 

device other than a fabric filter for 

existing sources subject to the PM 

emissions limit, the owner or operator 

must prepare and submit a monitoring 

plan to the permitting authority for 

approval. The information requirements 

for the plan would include: (1) A 

description of the device, (2) test results 

collected according to the rule 

requirements that verify the 

performance of the device for reducing 

PM emissions, (3) an operation and 

maintenance plan for the control device, 

(4) a list of operating parameters to be 

monitored, and (5) operating limits for 

control device operating parameters 

based on monitoring data collected 

during the performance test. 

E. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

The owner or operator of existing or 

new sources would be required to 

comply with certain requirements of the 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are identified in 

Table 1 of the proposed rule. The 

General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. We are 

proposing that the owner or operator of 

an affected foundry submit an Initial 

Notification according to the 

requirements § 63.9(a) through (d) and a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.9(h) of the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 

All aluminum, copper and other 

nonferrous foundries would be required 

to keep records to document compliance 

with the required management 

practices. For melting furnaces 

equipped with a cover or enclosure, 

these records would include the identity 

of each melting furnace equipped with 

a cover or enclosure, the date and time 

of each melting operation, and 

confirmation that the procedures in the 

management practices plan were 

followed. These records may be in the 

form of a checklist. The proposed rule 

also would require records of the 

purchase and use of only metal scrap 

that has been depleted of HAP metals 

prior to charging in a melting furnace. 

Owners or operators of existing 

sources equipped with a fabric filter 

would be required to maintain records 

of all VE monitoring data including: 

• Date, place, and time of the 

monitoring event; 

• Person conducting the monitoring; 

• Technique or method used; 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

• Operating conditions during the 

activity; 

• Results, including the date, time, 

and duration of the period from the time 

the monitoring indicated a problem to 

the time that monitoring indicated 

proper operation. 

• Maintenance or other corrective 

action. 

Recordkeeping requirements also would 

apply to facilities that use bag leak 

detection systems. We are also 

proposing to require that copper 

foundries and other nonferrous 

foundries that are not subject to the PM 

emission limits keep records to 

demonstrate the total annual amount 

(i.e., tpy) of metal melted at the facility 

is less than 6,000 tpy. 

If a deviation from the rule 

requirements occurs, an affected 

foundry would be required to submit a 

compliance report for that reporting 

period. The proposed rule specifies the 

information requirements for such 

compliance reports. 

V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source 

categories? 

As discussed in section II of this 

preamble, the inclusion of the 

‘‘Secondary Aluminum Production’’ 

(renamed ‘‘Aluminum Foundries’’) area 

source category on the area source 

category list was based on data from the 

CAA section 112(k) inventory, which 

represents 1990 urban air information. 

The ‘‘Aluminum Foundries’’ area source 

category was listed as contributing a 

percentage of the total area source 

emissions for the following urban HAP: 

Beryllium, cadmium, lead compounds, 

manganese, and nickel. 

The ‘‘Copper Foundries’’ and 

‘‘Nonferrous Foundries nec’’ (renamed 

‘‘Other Nonferrous Foundries’’) source 

categories were listed under CAA 

section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 

(67 FR 70427). The ‘‘Copper Foundries’’ 

area source category was listed based on 

emissions of lead compounds, 

manganese, and nickel. The ‘‘Other 

Nonferrous Foundries’’ area source 

category was listed based on emissions 

of chromium, lead compounds, and 

nickel. 

For the Aluminum Foundries, Copper 

Foundries, and Other Nonferrous 

Foundries area source categories, we 

solicited information on the production 

operations, emission sources, and 

available controls using written facility 

surveys, reviews of published literature, 

and reviews of operating permits. We 

also held discussions with industry 

representatives and trade associations. 

This research confirmed that the 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundry sources emit the 

urban HAP for which the source 

categories were listed, although we 

found that current emissions of such 

HAP are lower than the amounts 

estimated for 1990 in the section 112(k) 

inventory. The lower emissions can be 

attributed to the lower worker exposure 

standard for lead developed by the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) in 1996, State 

permitting requirements, and actions 

taken to improve efficiency or reduce 

costs. 

We are proposing that the rule apply 

only to those foundries that emit the 

metal HAP for which the source 

category was listed. The Aluminum 

Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries source categories 

would include only those facilities that 

use materials that contain or have the 

potential to emit aluminum foundry 

HAP, copper foundry HAP, or other 

nonferrous foundry HAP from melting 

furnaces. 

We are proposing to use elemental 

lead as a surrogate for lead compounds 

when determining the HAP metal 

content of materials charged to the 

furnace because elemental lead is a 

precursor to the formation of lead oxide 

(and other lead compounds), and lead 

compounds are a listed HAP for all 

three of the source categories that are 

the subject of this proposal. When 

elemental lead is used in furnace charge 

materials (e.g., as an alloy), some lead 

volatilizes at the high temperatures of 

the melting furnace and reacts with 

oxygen in the air, forming lead 

compounds. The presence of elemental 

lead in materials charged to the melting 

furnaces is an indication of potential 

HAP emissions of lead compounds. As 

with the listed examples, we believe 

that emissions below the OSHA 

thresholds were not part of the 1990 

inventory that established the basis for 

the listing. However, foundries melting 

copper-based alloys (such as alloys that 

contain elemental lead to make certain 

types of brass) emit lead compounds 

and were part of the 1990 inventory that 

established the basis for the listing. 

We also queried the 1990 TRI to 

develop the list of plants and their 

emissions used to develop the CAA 

section 112(k) emissions inventory for 

the three source categories. This query 

was performed in the same manner (by 

standard industrial classification code 

for the source categories reporting for 

1990) that was used to develop the 1990 

inventory. Our review of the basis for 

the listing of the three source categories 

indicated that the 1990 inventory was 

based on a small number of the largest 

foundries that met the TRI reporting 

thresholds. None of the very small 

foundries that are common in these 

source categories were included in the 

1990 TRI or used as the basis for the 

CAA section 112(k) listing. From our 

analysis of the 1990 TRI reporting data, 

we concluded that emissions from 

foundries melting less than 600 tpy of 

metal were not included in the 1990 

baseline inventory because they were 

not significant contributors to emissions 

of the listed metal HAP. Consequently, 

consistent with the listing, we are 

clarifying that the source category 

includes only those aluminum, copper, 

and other nonferrous foundries that 

melt 600 tpy or more of metal because 

only these foundries were the basis for 

the listing of the area source categories. 

We estimate that 318 of 966 aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

would be subject to the proposed rule. 

These 318 facilities account for 90 

percent of the production in the source 

categories and approximately 90 percent 

of the urban HAP emissions. Based on 

our experience with previous 

regulations involving foundry 

operations, there is a good correlation 

between the total amount of metal 

melted (production level) and resulting 

PM/metal HAP emissions. 

B. How did we select the affected 

source? 

Affected source means the collection 

of equipment and processes in the 

source category or subcategory to which 

the subpart applies. In selecting the 

affected source for this proposed rule, 

we identified foundry melting 

operations as the source of metal HAP 

emissions that was used for the 1990 

inventory. In the melting operations, the 

melting furnaces (e.g., induction, 

reverberatory, crucible, tower) are 

heated to high temperatures, primarily 

by natural gas or electricity, to melt 

solid ingot and scrap. Emissions from 

the molten metal include the primary 

metal being melted and its oxides, and 

to a lesser extent, trace quantities of 

HAP metals if they are present in the 

materials melted in the furnace. We 

concluded that designating foundry 

melting operations (including all of the 

various types of melting furnaces at an 

affected foundry) as the affected source 

was the most appropriate approach. 

C. How are the aluminum foundry HAP, 

the copper foundry HAP, and the other 

nonferrous foundry HAP addressed by 

this proposed rule? 

For this proposed rule, we decided 

that it was not practical to establish 

individual standards for each specific 

type of aluminum, copper, and other 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6517 

6National Lime Association v. EPA. 233 F.3d 625, 

639–640 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 

353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

7 285 of the 297 melting furnaces (96 percent) at 

34 of the 36 plants. 

nonferrous foundry metal HAP that 

could be present in the various 

processes. A sufficient correlation exists 

between PM and these metal HAP to 

rely on PM as a surrogate for both the 

presence of the HAP and for their 

control.6 When released, each of the 

metal HAP compounds behaves as PM. 

The control technologies used for the 

control of PM emissions achieve 

comparable levels of performance on the 

individual aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundry metal HAP 

emissions. Therefore, standards 

requiring good control of PM also 

achieve good control of aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundry 

metal HAP emissions. Furthermore, 

establishing separate standards for each 

individual metal HAP would impose 

costly and significantly more complex 

compliance and monitoring 

requirements and achieve little, if any, 

HAP emissions reductions beyond what 

would be achieved using the surrogate 

pollutant approach based on total PM. 

Based on these considerations, we are 

proposing standards for aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

based on control of total PM as a 

surrogate pollutant for the individual 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundry metal HAP. 

D. How did we determine GACT? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards representing 

GACT for the ‘‘Aluminum Foundries’’, 

‘‘Copper Foundries’’, and ‘‘Other 

Nonferrous Foundries’’ area source 

categories. As noted in section III.A of 

this preamble, EPA has the discretion to 

establish standards for area sources 

listed pursuant to section 112(c) based 

on GACT. See CAA section 112(d)(5). 

The statute does not set any condition 

precedent for issuing standards under 

section 112(d)(5) other than that the area 

source category or subcategory at issue 

must be one that EPA listed pursuant to 

section 112(c), which is the case here. 

Our data indicate that none of the 

facilities in the aluminum or other 

nonferrous foundries source categories 

are major sources. Consequently, we 

could not examine major sources in the 

same industrial sector to identify 

control technologies and management 

practices that may be transferable and 

generally available to area sources. 

However, we did consider technologies 

and practices at other major and area 

sources in similar categories. For 

example, we reviewed the management 

practices required by the area source 

standards for iron and steel foundries 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ). 

All of the facilities in the three source 

categories at issue here for which we 

have obtained data have good 

operational controls in place. We 

evaluated the control technologies and 

management practices that are generally 

available for these foundry area source 

categories. We also considered costs and 

economic impacts in determining 

GACT. We believe the consideration of 

costs and economic impacts is 

especially important for determining 

GACT for the Aluminum Foundries, 

Copper Foundries, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries area source 

categories because, given their relatively 

low level of HAP emissions, requiring 

additional controls would result in only 

marginal reductions in emissions at very 

high costs for modest incremental 

improvement in control. We explain our 

proposed GACT determinations in 

detail below. 

1. Aluminum Foundries 

We gathered background information 

on aluminum foundries from 

discussions with industry trade 

associations, an industry survey of area 

sources (no major sources were 

identified), and from a review of 

operating permits to identify the 

emission controls and management 

practices that are currently used to 

control PM and metal HAP emissions. 

We sent surveys to 9 companies with 10 

aluminum foundries, and we received 

information from these 9 companies for 

111 aluminum melting furnaces. EPA 

sent the survey to foundries ranging in 

size from 200 tpy of total metal 

processed and 11 to 12 employees per 

plant to 20,000 tpy and 350 to 650 

employees per plant (including three 

large foundries operated by automobile 

manufacturing companies). We also 

obtained and reviewed operating 

permits for 36 foundries that operate 

297 furnaces for melting aluminum. The 

survey results indicate that none of the 

111 melting furnaces at the 10 plants 

have PM emission control devices on 

their melting furnaces. Ninety-six 

percent of the melting furnaces included 

in the permit information do not have 

PM emission control devices.7 The lack 

of PM controls for aluminum melting 

furnaces is not surprising because of 

their lower operating (melt) 

temperatures and corresponding low 

emission potential compared to furnaces 

melting other metals. 

We also requested information in our 

survey on management practices to 

control emissions, and we reviewed the 

operating permits for management 

practices that might be used. The most 

common management practice reported 

in the survey responses was the use of 

‘‘clean charge’’ materials (primary ingot, 

internal recycled scrap), which was 

mentioned specifically by six plants. 

Four plants reported using covers on 

some of their furnaces to suppress 

emissions. In our review of management 

practices employed by similar area 

source categories, we found that a 

similar management practice has been 

applied and is required in other area 

source rules (i.e., requiring that furnace 

charge materials be depleted of HAP 

metals to the extent practicable). (See 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE and subpart 

YYYYY.) 

Based on our review of the techniques 

used at aluminum foundries and other 

types of foundries, we are proposing 

that the management practices 

discussed above are GACT for both 

existing and new sources. These 

techniques are generally available and 

have been implemented by many of the 

aluminum foundries. To the best of our 

knowledge and based on the 

information we have available, the 

management practices are not costly to 

implement and would not result in any 

significant adverse economic impact on 

any foundry (i.e., the cost would be 

much less than 0.1 percent of sales). 

Specifically, we are proposing as GACT 

that each aluminum foundry owner or 

operator would (1) cover or enclose 

melting furnaces, which are equipped 

with covers or enclosures during the 

melting process, to the extent 

practicable (e.g., except when access is 

needed, such as for charging, alloy 

addition, tapping); and (2) purchase and 

use only aluminum scrap that has been 

depleted (to the extent practicable) of 

HAP metals in the materials charged to 

the melting furnace, excluding HAP 

metals that are required to be added for 

the production of alloyed castings. In 

addition, we are proposing that each 

aluminum foundry owner or operator 

prepare and operate pursuant to a 

written management practices plan that 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

requirements described above. The plan 

would also include all other procedures 

that are implemented at the facility to 

minimize emissions from melting 

furnaces. The exception for alloyed 

castings is appropriate because some 

foundries, especially those producing 

alloys in which lead is an essential 

component, purchase certain types of 

scrap specifically for their lead content. 

An owner or operator who uses this 

exception would be required to 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

8Under section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ‘‘may 

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within 

a source category or subcategory in establishing 

such standards * * *’’. 

maintain records to document that the 

HAP metal is included in the material 

specification for the cast metal product. 

We also examined the feasibility of 

defining GACT to include an add-on 

control device (such as a fabric filter) to 

control metal HAP emissions from 

aluminum foundries. We had sufficient 

data on emissions and stack gas flow 

rates from an operating permit and an 

emissions inventory to perform an 

analysis for a medium-sized aluminum 

foundry (4,700 tpy of production) that 

had 51 crucible melting furnaces with 

melting rates that ranged from 9 to 68 

tons per hour. The furnaces were in 

seven groups that exhausted through 16 

different stacks. We estimated the total 

installed capital cost for a baghouse on 

each of the seven groups of furnaces as 

$4.7 million, with a total annualized 

cost of $1.0 million per year. The 

reduction in PM emissions was 

estimated as 6 tpy, with a reduction of 

0.02 tpy of metal HAP emissions. The 

cost effectiveness was estimated as 

$200,000 per ton for control of PM and 

$50 million per ton for control of metal 

HAP. We are therefore proposing that 

add-on controls, such as a baghouse, 

should not represent GACT for 

aluminum foundries because of the high 

cost and low cost effectiveness for only 

a marginal reduction in HAP emissions. 

2. Copper and Other Nonferrous 

Foundries 

In identifying GACT for sources in the 

Copper Foundries and Other Nonferrous 

Foundries area source categories, we 

gathered background information from 

industry surveys and operating permits 

to identify the emission controls and 

management practices that are currently 

used to control PM and metal HAP 

emissions from these sources. We sent 

surveys to nine companies operating 

copper foundries and two companies 

operating nonferrous foundries. We 

found that many facilities have both 

copper and other nonferrous foundries 

co-located at the same site. Because of 

the significant overlap between foundry 

operations and the similarity in melting 

processes, we evaluated GACT for 

copper and other nonferrous foundries 

collectively. In addition to similar metal 

products being cast at many of the same 

facilities in the two source categories, 

we found that copper and other 

nonferrous foundries use the same types 

and sizes of furnaces to melt certified 

ingot and/or scrap metal. The survey 

sent to the nine companies included 

foundries ranging in size from 50 tpy of 

total metal processed and less than 5 

employees per plant to 16,000 tpy and 

350 to 500 employees per plant. We also 

received information from industry 

trade associations and from operating 

permits for 15 additional copper and 

other nonferrous foundries. As part of 

the industry survey, we requested 

information on management practices to 

control emissions, and we reviewed the 

operating permits for management 

practices that might be used. We also 

reviewed the management practices 

used in similar source categories, such 

as Aluminum Foundries and Iron and 

Steel Foundries. 

Based on our review of the techniques 

used at foundries, we are proposing the 

management practices discussed 

previously for aluminum foundries as 

GACT for both existing and new sources 

at copper and other nonferrous 

foundries. These techniques are 

generally available and have been 

widely implemented by many copper 

and other nonferrous foundries. In 

addition, these management practices 

are not costly to implement and would 

not result in any significant adverse 

economic impact on any foundry (i.e., 

the cost would be much less than 0.1 

percent of sales). The owner or operator 

of a copper and other nonferrous 

foundry subject to the area source 

standards would be required to (1) cover 

or enclose melting furnaces, which are 

equipped with covers or enclosures 

during the melting process, to the extent 

practicable (e.g., except when access is 

needed, such as for charging, alloy 

addition, tapping); and (2) purchase and 

use only scrap that has been depleted 

(to the extent practicable) of HAP metals 

in the materials charged to the melting 

furnace, excluding HAP metals that are 

required to be added for the production 

of alloyed castings. In addition, we are 

proposing that each copper and other 

nonferrous foundry owner or operator 

prepare and operate by a written 

management practices plan that 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

requirements described above. The plan 

would also include all other procedures 

that are implemented at the facility to 

minimize emissions from melting 

furnaces. As discussed above, the 

exception for alloyed castings is 

appropriate because some foundries, 

especially those producing alloys in 

which lead is an essential component, 

purchase certain types of scrap 

specifically for their lead content. For 

example, certain grades of brass castings 

(a copper-based alloy) are required to 

have percent levels of lead in their 

product specification. As for aluminum 

foundries, an owner or operator who 

uses this exception would maintain 

records to document that the HAP metal 

is included in the material specification 

for the cast metal product. 

As part of the GACT analysis, we also 

considered whether other control 

techniques or add-on controls (in 

addition to management practices) 

should be considered generally 

available for this industry and whether 

there are differences in processes, sizes, 

or other factors affecting emissions that 

would warrant subcategorization.8 In 

our review of the production and 

emissions data for all of the copper and 

other nonferrous foundries in the 

project database, we found significant 

differences among foundries based on 

their total melt rates. Smaller foundries 

were found to have smaller melting 

furnaces and lower emissions, and 

smaller foundries are more likely to 

have smaller scale (e.g., crucible) 

furnaces and other low capacity 

furnaces. These differences in process 

equipment affect the feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of add-on controls such as 

baghouses to reduce metal HAP 

emissions. Based on these differences, 

we determined that subcategorization of 

copper and other nonferrous foundries 

by size was justified to evaluate the 

feasibility of add-on controls. 

We evaluated the impacts of requiring 

all melting furnaces to operate with a 

baghouse control system. As part of that 

evaluation, we examined the feasibility 

of defining GACT for those facilities 

melting less than 6,000 tpy of total 

metal to include an add-on control 

device for PM and HAP metals (such as 

a baghouse) to control metal HAP 

emissions. For those facilities with 

annual melting rates less than 6,000 tpy 

of total metal, we had information 

showing that fewer than half (4 out of 

10) of the foundries currently use addon controls and that all of the facilities 

that responded to the survey use some 

type of management practice(s) to 

minimize PM and metal HAP emissions. 

Based on our analysis of costs for a 

typical facility melting less than 6,000 

tpy, we estimated the cost effectiveness 

for applying a baghouse to the melting 

furnaces as $50,000 per ton of PM and 

$1 million per ton of metal HAP. We 

therefore concluded that add-on 

controls, such as a baghouse, should not 

represent GACT for copper and other 

nonferrous foundries with melting rates 

less than 6,000 tpy of total metal 

processed because of the high 

equipment and installation cost 

(compared to process equipment) and 

low cost effectiveness. For facilities 

melting less than 6,000 tpy, we 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6519 

concluded that GACT is the 

management practices discussed above. 

We also examined the feasibility of 

add-on controls for metal HAP for 

melting furnaces melting 6,000 tpy or 

more. Our evaluation of the data and 

survey results showed that at least nine 

of the 10 foundries we identified with 

melting rates greater than or equal to 

6,000 tpy use add-on controls for PM 

and HAP metals on their melting 

operations. Discussions with industry 

trade associations and foundry 

representatives indicated that all copper 

and other nonferrous foundries melting 

more than 6,000 tpy used add-on 

controls for emissions of PM and metal 

HAP. Consequently, to the best of our 

knowledge and based on the available 

information, there would be no 

significant costs or adverse economic 

impacts in determining that GACT for 

foundries melting 6,000 tpy or more of 

total metal should include (in addition 

to the management practices discussed 

above) an emission standard based on 

the level of control achieved by an addon control device. If commenters can 

identify foundries not in our database 

that would be required to install add-on 

control devices as a result of this 

proposed rule, please provide 

supporting data (at a minimum, the 

name and location of the foundry and 

its melting capacity) in your comments. 

In their survey responses, facilities 

that melted 6,000 tpy or more of total 

metal reported using fabric filters (i.e., 

baghouses or cartridge filters) on 

furnace melting operations and that 

such fabric filters performed at a PM 

collection efficiency of at least 95 

percent. Based on the same types of 

controls used on similar sources, an 

equivalent outlet PM concentration 

limit is 0.034 grams per dry standard 

cubic meter (g/dscm) (i.e., 0.015 grains 

per dry standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]). 

Based on the data we have collected, 

we are proposing the management 

practices discussed above and a PM 

standard as GACT for existing copper 

and other nonferrous foundries that 

melt 6,000 tpy or more of metal that 

would require achieving a reduction in 

the PM emissions from melting 

operations of at least 95 percent or an 

outlet concentration of no more than 

0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf), which is 

equivalent to a reduction of at least 95 

percent. The proposed PM standard 

would be based on the performance that 

has been demonstrated for fabric filters 

applied to existing sources’ melting 

operations in the Copper Foundries and 

Other Nonferrous Foundries source 

categories. For example, an equivalent 

outlet concentration limit of 0.034 g/ 

dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) was determined to 

be GACT for melting furnaces at 

secondary nonferrous metal processing 

area sources, and the melting furnaces, 

emissions, and level of control that can 

be achieved are similar to those at 

copper and other nonferrous foundries. 

An outlet concentration limit is 

necessary (in addition to a percent 

reduction standard) because the inlet 

flow rate and concentration (both 

needed to determine control efficiency) 

for some emission control systems 

cannot be accurately measured due to 

the configuration of duct work. In 

addition, some furnaces have an inlet 

mass rate that is so low that control 

efficiency is not a practical measure of 

performance. We determined that the 

GACT level of control is achievable by 

technology (i.e., baghouse or cartridge 

filters) that is generally available and 

widely used, and the technology is 

effective for controlling emissions of 

PM, copper foundry HAP, and other 

nonferrous foundry HAP. 

In identifying GACT for new affected 

sources in the Copper Foundries and 

Other Nonferrous Foundries area source 

categories, we considered the available 

data on the existing facilities and the 

levels of control achieved by the best 

performing sources, which is a level of 

control that can be designed into and 

achieved by new sources. The best 

performing facilities reported that each 

fabric filter used at their facilities 

performed at a PM collection efficiency 

of at least 99 percent. 

We contacted baghouse manufacturers 

to gather information on design 

parameters and performance for new 

baghouse installations in the foundries 

industry. Furthermore, we also 

considered the performance of 

baghouses at similar sources (e.g., 

melting furnaces used in other 

industries). Based on the available data 

from the existing facilities, a review of 

operating permits, contacts with 

baghouse manufacturers, and 

consideration of baghouse performance 

at similar sources, we are proposing that 

the management practices discussed 

above and a PM standard as GACT for 

new copper and other nonferrous 

foundries that melt 6,000 tpy or more of 

metal that would require achieving a 

reduction in the PM emissions from 

melting operations of at least 99 percent 

or an outlet concentration of no more 

than 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf), 

which is equivalent to a reduction of at 

least 99 percent. 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

We are proposing testing, monitoring, 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements needed to assure 

compliance with the rule as proposed. 

These proposed provisions are based, in 

part, on requirements that have been 

applied to several similar industries in 

other area source category rules and an 

understanding of how control devices 

perform and how control devices and 

management practices can be effectively 

monitored. In selecting these provisions, 

we identified the information necessary 

to ensure that emissions controls are 

maintained and operated properly on a 

continuing basis. 

The proposed notification and 

recordkeeping requirements are 

primarily from the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 

Specifically, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator of an affected source 

submit Initial Notifications and a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

because these notifications provide the 

information needed to identify the 

affected sources subject to the proposed 

standards and to confirm the 

compliance status of the facilities. See 

40 CFR 63.9(b) and (h). We are also 

proposing that foundry owners or 

operators keep records and, if a 

deviation occurs, submit a compliance 

report that describes the deviation and 

corrective action. We believe the 

proposed requirements would ensure 

compliance with the provisions of this 

proposed rule without posing a 

significant additional burden for the 

facilities that would implement them. 

Aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries that would be 

subject to this rule would be required to 

prepare and implement a written 

management practice plan to minimize 

emissions from melting furnaces and 

record certain information showing that 

the management practices are 

implemented. Copper or other 

nonferrous foundries that melt 6,000 tpy 

or greater of metal would be required to 

comply with a PM emission standard, 

conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate initial compliance, and 

conduct daily monitoring of control 

device operation to ensure that the 

fabric filter continues to operate 

efficiently. If an observation reveals the 

presence of visible emissions (VE), the 

owner or operator would be required to 

take corrective action. Records would be 

required to demonstrate conformance 

with the fabric filter monitoring 

requirements. 

We are proposing to require bag leak 

detection systems for new sources 

because these systems can be 

incorporated into the design and 

operation of new sources without 

retrofitting, as would be the case if they 

were to be incorporated into existing 

sources. Bag leak detection systems are 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6520 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

typical requirements in our regulations 

of new sources that are of the size and 

complexity as copper and other 

nonferrous foundries. The proposed rule 

also offers bag leak detection systems as 

an alternative monitoring option for 

owners or operators of existing sources. 

We are proposing that facilities with 

existing sources comply with the rule’s 

requirements no later than 2 years after 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. We are further 

proposing that facilities with new 

sources comply at startup. We are 

proposing 2 years for existing sources 

because of the time needed for facilities 

(most of which are small businesses that 

have never been regulated before) to 

understand the regulation and to plan, 

prepare, and implement compliance 

activities. These small businesses have 

limited resources and will need 

assistance; however, it will take time for 

small business assistance centers to 

provide the necessary outreach and 

assistance. We believe 2 years for 

compliance is ‘‘as expeditious as 

practicable’’ considering all of these 

factors. (See CAA section 112(i)(3).) 

F. How did we decide to propose to 

exempt these source categories from 

title V permit requirements? 

We are proposing exemptions from 

title V permitting requirements for 

affected facilities in the aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

area source categories for the reasons 

described below. Section 502(a) of the 

CAA provides that the Administrator 

may exempt an area source category 

from title V if he determines that 

compliance with title V requirements is 

‘‘impracticable, infeasible, or 

unnecessarily burdensome’’ on an area 

source category. See CAA section 

502(a). In December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category, such 

that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 

19, 2005 (Exemption Rule). 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source 

category include (1) whether title V 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, that are 

proposed for an area source category (70 

FR 75323); (2) whether title V 

permitting would impose significant 

burdens on the area source category and 

whether the burdens would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the sources 

may have in obtaining assistance from 

permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 

whether the costs of title V permitting 

for the area source category would be 

justified, taking into consideration any 

potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); 

and (4) whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP for 

the area source category, without relying 

on title V permits (70 FR 75326). 

In discussing these factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we further explained 

that we considered on ‘‘a case-by-case 

basis the extent to which one or more 

of the four factors supported title V 

exemptions for a given source category, 

and then we assessed whether 

considered together those factors 

demonstrated that compliance with title 

V requirements would be ‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’ on the category, consistent 

with section 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 

FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained that not all of the four 

factors must weigh in favor of 

exemption for EPA to determine that 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category. 

Instead, the factors are to be considered 

in combination, and EPA determines 

whether the factors, taken together, 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category. As discussed 

in more detail below, our evaluation of 

these four factors weigh in favor of 

exemption of these source categories. 

In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with 

title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on an area 

source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting the area 

source category would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, 

March 25, 2005. We believe that the 

proposed exemptions from title V would 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare, and the environment. Our 

rationale for these decisions follows 

here. 

In considering the proposed 

exemption from title V requirements for 

sources in the source categories affected 

by this proposed rule, we first compared 

the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements (factor one) 

to the requirements in this proposed 

NESHAP for the Aluminum Foundries, 

Copper Foundries, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries area source 

categories. EPA is proposing that a PM 

emission limit based on the use of fabric 

filters is GACT for copper and other 

nonferrous foundries melting 6,000 tpy 

or more of metal, and that management 

practices currently used at most 

facilities is GACT for all foundries in 

each of the three source categories. This 

proposed rule would require daily (or 

weekly) VE determinations for existing 

sources, bag leak detection system for 

new sources, recordkeeping, and 

deviation reporting to assure 

compliance with this NESHAP. The 

monitoring component of the first factor 

favors title V exemption because this 

proposed standard would provide for 

monitoring that assures compliance 

with the requirements of the proposed 

rule. For existing sources located at 

copper or other nonferrous foundries 

processing 6,000 tpy or more of total 

metal, this proposed NESHAP would set 

an emission limit that would require the 

use of a PM control system (i.e., fabric 

filter) with daily VE determinations. For 

new and existing sources located at 

aluminum, copper, or nonferrous 

foundries, the proposed NESHAP would 

require management practices to control 

emissions from melting furnaces. For 

the management practices, 

recordkeeping would be required to 

assure that the management practices 

are implemented, such as the use of 

covers or enclosures during melting and 

the purchase and use of materials that 

have been depleted (to the extent 

practicable) of aluminum foundry HAP, 

copper foundry HAP, and other 

nonferrous foundry HAP. 

As part of the first factor, we have 

considered the extent to which title V 

could potentially enhance compliance 

for area sources covered by this 

proposed rule through monitoring, 

recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirements. We have considered the 

various title V recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, including 

requirements for a 6-month monitoring 

report, deviation reports, and an annual 

certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. 

For any affected aluminum, copper, or 

other nonferrous foundry area source 

facility, this proposed NESHAP would 

require Initial Notifications and a 

Notification of Compliance Status. The 

proposed aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries NESHAP would 

also require affected facilities to 

maintain records showing compliance 

with the proposed monitoring 

requirements and management practices 

and to submit a compliance report to the 

permitting authority if any deviation 

occurs. The information that would be 

required in the notifications, records, 

and reports is similar to the information 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6521 

that would be provided in the deviation 

reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge 

that title V might impose additional 

compliance requirements on this 

category, but we believe that the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of this proposed 

NESHAP for aluminum, copper, and 

other nonferrous foundries would be 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

provisions of this NESHAP, and that 

title V would not significantly improve 

those compliance requirements. 

For the second factor, we determined 

whether title V permitting would 

impose a significant burden on the area 

sources in the category and whether that 

burden would be aggravated by any 

difficulty the source may have in 

obtaining assistance from the permitting 

agency. Subjecting any source to title V 

permitting imposes certain burdens and 

costs that do not exist outside of the title 

V program. EPA estimated that the 

average cost of obtaining and complying 

with a title V permit was $65,700 per 

source for a 5-year permit period, 

including fees. See Information 

Collection Request for Part 70 Operating 

Permit Regulations, June 2007, EPA ICR 

Number 1587.07. EPA does not have 

specific estimates for the burdens and 

costs of permitting aluminum, copper, 

and other nonferrous foundry sources; 

however, there are certain activities 

associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. 

These activities are mandatory and 

impose burdens on the facility. They 

include reading and understanding 

permit program guidance and 

regulations; obtaining and 

understanding permit application forms; 

answering follow-up questions from 

permitting authorities after the 

application is submitted; reviewing and 

understanding the permit; collecting 

records; preparing and submitting 

monitoring reports on a 6-month or 

more frequent basis; preparing and 

submitting prompt deviation reports, as 

defined by the State, which may include 

a combination of written, verbal, and 

other communications methods; 

collecting information, preparing, and 

submitting the annual compliance 

certification; preparing applications for 

permit revisions every 5 years; and, as 

needed, preparing and submitting 

applications for permit revisions. In 

addition, although not required by the 

permit rules, many sources obtain the 

contractual services of consultants to 

help them understand and meet the 

permitting program’s requirements. The 

ICR for part 70 provides additional 

information on the overall burdens and 

costs, as well as the relative burdens of 

each activity. Also, for a more 

comprehensive list of requirements 

imposed on part 70 sources (hence, 

burden on sources), see the 

requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, 

and 70.7. 

In assessing the second factor for 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries, we found that 

approximately 98 percent of the plants 

that would be affected by the proposed 

rule are small businesses, most with 

fewer than 50 employees and about 25 

percent or more with only one to four 

employees. These small sources lack the 

technical resources to comply with 

permitting requirements and the 

financial resources needed to hire the 

necessary staff or outside consultants. 

As discussed previously, title V 

permitting would impose significant 

costs on these area sources, and, 

accordingly, we believe that title V 

would be a significant burden for 

sources in this category. Most are small 

businesses with limited resources, and 

under title V, they would be subject to 

numerous mandatory activities with 

which they would have difficulty 

complying, whether they were issued a 

standard or a general permit. 

Furthermore, given the number of 

sources in the category and the 

relatively small size of most of those 

sources, it would likely be difficult for 

them to obtain assistance from the 

permitting authority. Thus, we believe 

that the second factor strongly supports 

title V exemption for aluminum, copper, 

and other nonferrous foundries. 

The third factor, which is closely 

related to the second factor, is whether 

the costs of title V permitting for these 

area sources would be justified, taking 

into consideration any potential gains in 

compliance likely to occur for such 

sources. We explained above for the 

second factor that the costs of 

compliance with title V would impose 

a significant burden on nearly all of the 

300 or more aluminum, copper, and 

other nonferrous foundries that would 

be affected by the proposed rule. 

Although title V might impose 

additional requirements, we believe that 

in considering the first factor, the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the proposed 

NESHAP would assure compliance with 

the controls and management practices 

imposed in the NESHAP as proposed. 

Because the costs of compliance with 

title V are so high, and the potential for 

gains in compliance is low, we are 

proposing that title V permitting is not 

justified for these source categories. 

Accordingly, the third factor supports 

the proposed title V exemptions for 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries area sources. 

The fourth factor we considered in 

determining if title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome is whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. 

States to which EPA delegates authority 

to implement and enforce this NESHAP 

will have programs in place to enforce 

the rule, and we believe that these 

programs will be sufficient to assure 

compliance. We also note that EPA 

retains authority to enforce this 

NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 

112, 113, and 114. We further note that 

small business assistance programs 

required by CAA section 507 may be 

used to assist area sources that have 

been exempted from title V permitting. 

Also, States and EPA often conduct 

voluntary compliance assistance, 

outreach, and education programs 

(compliance assistance programs), 

which are not required by statute. These 

additional programs would supplement 

and enhance the success of compliance 

with this area source NESHAP. We 

believe that the statutory requirements 

for implementation and enforcement of 

this NESHAP by the delegated States 

and EPA and the additional assistance 

programs described above together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with this 

area source NESHAP without relying on 

title V permits. 

In applying the fourth factor in the 

Exemption Rule, where EPA had 

deferred action on the title V exemption 

for several years, we had enforcement 

data available to demonstrate that States 

were not only enforcing the provisions 

of the area source NESHAP that we 

exempted, but that the States were also 

providing compliance assistance to 

assure that the area sources were in the 

best position to comply with the 

NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325–75326. In 

proposing this rule, we do not have 

similar data available on the specific 

enforcement as in the Exemption Rule, 

but we have no reason to think that 

States which are delegated to implement 

and enforce this NESHAP will be less 

diligent in their enforcement 

responsibilities. See 70 FR 75326. In 

fact, States must have adequate 

programs to enforce the section 112 

regulations and provide assurances that 

they will enforce all NESHAP before 

EPA will delegate the program. See 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E. 

In light of all the information 

presented here, we believe that there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the aluminum, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6522 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

NESHAP without relying on title V 

permitting. 

Balancing the four factors for these 

area source categories strongly supports 

the proposed finding that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome. Although 

title V might add additional compliance 

requirements, if imposed, we believe 

that there would not be significant 

improvements to the proposed 

compliance requirements in the 

NESHAP because the proposed 

requirements are specifically designed 

to assure compliance with the emission 

standards that would be imposed on 

these area source categories. 

We also believe that the costs of 

compliance with title V would impose 

a significant burden on the sources. In 

addition, the high relative costs would 

not be justified given that there is likely 

to be little or no potential gain in 

compliance if title V were required. 

And, finally, for delegated States, we 

believe there are adequate 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place to assure compliance 

with the NESHAP. Thus, we propose 

that title V permitting is unnecessarily 

burdensome for the Aluminum 

Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries area source 

categories. 

In addition to evaluating whether 

compliance with title V requirements is 

unnecessarily burdensome, EPA also 

considered, consistent with guidance 

provided by the legislative history of 

section 502(a), whether exempting the 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries area source 

categories from title V requirements 

would adversely affect public health, 

welfare, or the environment. Exemption 

of the aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries area source 

categories from title V requirements 

would not adversely affect public 

health, welfare, or the environment 

because the level of control would 

remain the same if a permit were 

required. The title V permit program 

does not generally impose new 

substantive air quality control 

requirements on sources, but instead 

requires that certain procedural 

measures be followed, particularly with 

respect to determining compliance with 

applicable requirements. As stated in 

our consideration of the first factor for 

this category, we do not believe title V 

would lead to significant improvements 

in the compliance requirements 

applicable to existing or new area 

sources. 

Furthermore, one of the primary 

purposes of the title V permitting 

program is to clarify, in a single 

document, the various and sometimes 

complex regulations that apply to 

sources in order to improve 

understanding of these requirements 

and to help sources achieve compliance 

with the requirements. In this case, 

however, we do not believe that a title 

V permit is necessary to understand the 

requirements that would be applicable 

to these area sources because the 

requirements of the rule are not difficult 

to implement. We also have no reason 

to think that new sources would be 

substantially different from the existing 

sources. In addition, we explained in 

the Exemption Rule that requiring 

permits for the large number of area 

sources could, at least in the first few 

years of implementation, potentially 

adversely affect public health, welfare, 

or the environment by shifting State 

agency resources away from assuring 

compliance for major sources with 

existing permits to issuing new permits 

for these area sources, potentially 

reducing overall air program 

effectiveness. Based on this analysis, we 

believe that title V exemptions for the 

aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries area sources 

would not adversely affect public 

health, welfare, or the environment for 

all of the reasons previously explained. 

For the reasons stated here, we are 

proposing to exempt the aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

area source categories from title V 

permitting requirements. 

VI. Summary of the Impacts of the 

Proposed Standards 

Existing aluminum, copper, and other 

nonferrous foundries are currently wellcontrolled, and our proposed GACT 

determination reflects such controls. 

Compared to 1990, when the baseline 

emissions were established, these 

sources have improved their level of 

control and reduced emissions due to 

State permitting requirements, OSHA 

regulations (particularly for lead), and 

actions taken to improve efficiency and 

reduce costs. We estimate that the only 

impacts associated with the proposed 

rule are the compliance requirements 

(i.e., monitoring, reporting, 

recordkeeping, and testing). 

Approximately 318 aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries 

would be subject to the proposed rule 

and would incur initial one-time costs 

of $656,000 and a total annualized cost 

of $645,000/yr (an average of $2,000/yr 

per plant). The one-time (‘‘first’’ costs) 

are for initial notifications; preparing 

the management practices plan and 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan; and initial performance tests. 

Recurring annual costs include those for 

maintaining records and daily visual 

inspections of fabric filters. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR No. 2332.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the proposed rule 

would be based on the information 

collection requirements in EPA’s 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

General Provisions are mandatory 

pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and 

EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The proposed NESHAP would require 

applicable one-time notifications 

according to the NESHAP General 

Provisions. Plant owners or operators 

would be required to prepare and 

operate by written management practice 

plans and include compliance 

certifications for the management 

practices in their Notifications of 

Compliance Status. Foundries subject to 

the emission standards would be 

required to conduct daily VE 

observations with a reduction to weekly 

VE observations if VE are not detected 

after 90 consecutive days of daily 

observations. Recordkeeping would be 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with management practices, monitoring, 

and applicability provisions. The 

affected facilities are expected to 

already have the necessary control and 

monitoring equipment in place and to 

already conduct much of the required 

monitoring and recordkeeping activities. 

Foundries subject to the rule also would 

be required to comply with the 

requirements for startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plans/reports and to submit 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6523 

a compliance report if a deviation 

occurred during the semiannual 

reporting period. 

The average annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 7,202 labor hours per year at a cost 

of approximately $411,278 for the 318 

facilities that would be subject to the 

proposed rule, or approximately 68 

hours per year per facility. No capital/ 

startup costs or operation and 

maintenance costs are associated with 

the proposed information collection 

requirements. No costs or burden hours 

are estimated for new area source 

foundries because none are projected for 

the next 3 years. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless the collection displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on EPA’s need for this 

information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA 

has established a public docket for this 

action, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0236. Please submit any 

comments related to the ICR for the 

proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this preamble for where to submit 

comments to EPA. Send comments to 

OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Because 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after February 9, 2009, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by March 11, 

2009. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of the proposed area source 

NESHAP on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

whose parent company meets the Small 

Business Administration size standards 

for small businesses found at 13 CFR 

121.201 (less than 500 for aluminum, 

copper, and other nonferrous foundries); 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

and (3) a small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. There would be no significant 

impacts on new or existing aluminum, 

copper, or nonferrous foundries because 

this proposed rule would not create any 

new requirements or burdens other than 

minimal compliance requirements. This 

proposed rule is estimated to impact 

318 (of more than 962) area source 

facilities, 307 of which are small 

entities. The analysis shows that none of 

the small entities would incur economic 

impacts exceeding 3 percent of its 

revenue. We have determined that small 

entity compliance costs are expected to 

be less than 0.05 percent of company 

sales revenue for all affected plants. 

Although this proposed rule would 

contain requirements for new area 

sources, EPA does not expect any new 

aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous 

foundries to be constructed in the 

foreseeable future; therefore, EPA did 

not estimate the impacts for new 

affected sources. 

Although this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 

reduce the impact of this proposed rule 

on small entities. The standards 

represent practices and controls that are 

common throughout the industry. The 

standards would also require only the 

essential monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting needed to verify 

compliance. The proposed standards 

were developed based on information 

obtained from small businesses in our 

surveys, consultation with small 

business representatives, and 

consultation with industry 

representatives that are affiliated with 

small businesses. We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the 

proposed action on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector 

in any one year. This proposed rule is 

not expected to impact State, local, or 

tribal governments. The nationwide 

annualized cost of this proposed rule for 

affected industrial sources is $645,000/ 

yr. Thus, this proposed rule would not 

be subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

This proposed rule would also not be 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The proposed rule would 

not apply to such governments and 

would impose no obligations upon 

them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It would not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

rule would not impose any 

requirements on State and local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6524 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This proposed rule would not 

impose any requirements on tribal 

governments; thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant,’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. We have 

concluded that this proposed rule 

would not likely have any significant 

adverse energy effects because no 

additional pollution controls or other 

equipment that consume energy would 

be required. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. EPA has decided to use 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual 

methods of measuring the oxygen or 

carbon dioxide content of the exhaust 

gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA 

Method 3B. This standard is available 

from the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 

5990. 

EPA has also decided to use EPA 

Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 

3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 17. Although the 

Agency has identified 11 VCS as being 

potentially applicable to these methods 

cited in this rule, we have decided not 

to use these standards in this 

rulemaking. The use of these VCS 

would have been impractical because 

they do not meet the objectives of the 

standards cited in this rule. The search 

and review results are in the docket for 

this rule. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. Under 

§ 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the 

General Provisions, a source may apply 

to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final 

rule and amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it would not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporations by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 15, 2009. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ IBR 

approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 

63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 

63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 

63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 

63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 

63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 

63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 

63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 

63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 

63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 

63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), 

table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, 

and table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

3. Part 63 is amended by adding 

subpart ZZZZZZ to read as follows: 

Subpart ZZZZZZ—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Area Source Standards for Aluminum, 

Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

Sec. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6525 

63.11544 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.11545 What are my compliance dates? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements 

63.11550 What are my standards and 

management practices? 

63.11551 What are my initial compliance 

requirements? 

63.11552 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

63.11553 What are my notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.11555 What General Provisions apply to 

this subpart? 

63.11556 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

63.11557 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

63.11558 [Reserved] 

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Aluminum, Copper, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries Area Sources 

Subpart ZZZZZZ—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Area Source Standards for 

Aluminum, Copper, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§ 63.11544 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate an aluminum 

foundry, copper foundry, or other 

nonferrous foundry as defined in 

§ 63.11556, ‘‘What definitions apply to 

this subpart?’’ that is an area source of 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 

and meets the criteria specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Your aluminum foundry, copper 

foundry, or other nonferrous foundry 

uses materials that contain or have the 

potential to emit one or more aluminum 

foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP, or 

other nonferrous foundry HAP, as 

defined in § 63.11556, ‘‘What 

definitions apply to this subpart?’’; and 

(2) Your aluminum foundry, copper 

foundry, or other nonferrous foundry 

melts at least 600 tons per year (tpy) of 

metal. 

(b) This subpart applies to each new 

or existing affected source located at an 

aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous 

foundry subject to this subpart, as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Aluminum foundry sources that 

melt materials that contain or have the 

potential to emit one or more aluminum 

foundry HAP as defined in § 63.11556, 

‘‘What definitions apply to this 

subpart?’’ 

(2) Copper foundry melting operations 

that melt materials that contain or have 

the potential to emit one or more copper 

foundry HAP as defined in § 63.11556, 

‘‘What definitions apply to this 

subpart?’’ 

(3) Other nonferrous foundry melting 

operations that melt materials that 

contain or have the potential to emit one 

or more other nonferrous foundry HAP 

as defined in § 63.11556, ‘‘What 

definitions apply to this subpart?’’ 

(c) An affected source is an existing 

source if you commenced construction 

or reconstruction of the affected source 

on or before February 9, 2009. 

(d) An affected source is a new source 

if you commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source 

after February 9, 2009. 

(e) This subpart does not apply to 

research and development facilities, as 

defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean 

Air Act. 

(f) You are exempt from the obligation 

to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 

or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not 

otherwise required to obtain a permit 

under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a) 

for a reason other than your status as an 

area source under this subpart. 

Notwithstanding the previous sentence, 

you must continue to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart applicable to 

area sources. 

§ 63.11545 What are my compliance 

dates? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart no later than 

[2 years after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register]. 

(b) If you start up a new affected 

source on or before [the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must achieve 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart no later than [the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(c) If you start up a new affected 

source after [the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register], 

you must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart upon startup 

of your affected source. 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.11550 What are my standards and 

management practices? 

(a) If you own or operate new or 

existing sources at an aluminum 

foundry, copper foundry, or other 

nonferrous foundry that is subject to 

this subpart, you must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(1) Cover or enclose each melting 

furnace that is equipped with a cover or 

enclosure during the melting operation 

to the extent practicable (e.g., except 

where access is needed, such as for 

charging, alloy addition, tapping). 

(2) Purchase only metal scrap that has 

been depleted (to the extent practicable) 

of aluminum foundry HAP, copper 

foundry HAP, or nonferrous foundry 

HAP (as applicable) in the materials 

charged to the melting furnace, except 

metal scrap that is purchased 

specifically for its HAP metal content 

for use in alloying; 

(3) Prepare and operate pursuant to a 

written management practices plan. The 

management practices plan must 

include the required management 

practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section and any other management 

practices that are implemented at the 

facility to minimize emissions from 

melting furnaces. You may use your 

standard operating procedures as the 

management practices plan provided 

the standard operating procedures 

include the required management 

practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 

(b) If you own or operate new or 

existing sources at a copper foundry or 

other nonferrous foundry that melts 

6,000 tpy or greater of metal: 

(1) For existing sources, you must 

achieve a particulate matter (PM) 

control efficiency of at least 95.0 percent 

or an outlet PM concentration limit of 

at most 0.034 grams per dry standard 

cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.015 grains per 

dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf)). 

(2) For new sources, you must achieve 

a PM control efficiency of at least 99.0 

percent or an outlet PM concentration 

limit of at most 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/ 

dscf). 

§ 63.11551 What are my initial compliance 

requirements? 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, you must conduct a 

performance test for existing and new 

sources at a copper or other nonferrous 

foundry that is subject to § 63.11550(b). 

You must conduct the test within 180 

days of your compliance date and report 

the results in your Notification of 

Compliance Status according to 

§ 63.9(h). 

(b) If you own or operate existing 

sources at a copper or other nonferrous 

foundry that is subject to § 63.11550(b), 

you are not required to conduct a 

performance test if a prior performance 

test was conducted within the past 5 

years of the compliance date using the 

same methods specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section and you meet either of 

the following two conditions: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6526 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(1) No process changes have been 

made since the test; or 

(2) You demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the permitting authority 

that the results of the performance test, 

with or without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite process 

changes. 

(c) You must conduct each test 

according to the requirements in § 63.7 

and the requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) You must determine the 

concentration of PM (for the 

concentration standard) or the mass rate 

of PM (for the percent reduction 

standard) according to the following test 

methods: 

(i) Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1) to select sampling port 

locations and the number of traverse 

points in each stack or duct. If you are 

complying with the concentration 

provision in § 63.11550(b), sampling 

sites must be located at the outlet of the 

control device and prior to any releases 

to the atmosphere. If you are complying 

with the percent reduction provision in 

§ 63.11550(b), sampling sites must be 

located at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device and prior to any releases 

to the atmosphere. 

(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1), or Method 2G 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2) to 

determine the volumetric flow rate of 

the stack gas. 

(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2) to determine the dry 

molecular weight of the stack gas. You 

may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ 

(incorporated by reference-see § 63.14) 

as an alternative to EPA Method 3B. 

(iv) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3) to determine the 

moisture content of the stack gas. 

(v) Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3) or Method 17 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–6) to determine the 

concentration of PM or mass rate of PM 

(front half filterable catch only). If you 

are subject to the percent reduction PM 

standard, you must determine the mass 

rate of PM at the inlet and outlet in 

pounds per hour and calculate the 

percent reduction in PM. 

(2) Three valid test runs are needed to 

comprise a performance test. Each run 

must cover at least one production cycle 

(charging, melting, and tapping). 

(3) During the test, you must operate 

each melting furnace within ±10 percent 

of its normal process rate. You must 

monitor and record the process rate 

during the test. 

§ 63.11552 What are the monitoring 

requirements? 

(a) You must record the information 

specified in § 63.11553(c)(2) to 

document conformance with the 

management practices plan required in 

§ 63.11550(a). 

(b) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, if you own or 

operate existing sources, you must 

conduct visible emissions (VE) 

monitoring according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) You must conduct visual 

monitoring of the monovent or fabric 

filter outlet stack(s) for any visible 

emissions (VE) according to the 

schedule specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) You must perform a visual 

determination of fugitive emissions 

once per day, on each day the process 

is in operation, during melting 

operations. 

(ii) If no visible fugitive emissions are 

detected in consecutive daily visual 

monitoring performed in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section 

for 90 days of operation of the process, 

you may decrease the frequency of 

visual monitoring to once per calendar 

week of time the process is in operation, 

during operation of the process. If 

visible fugitive emissions are detected 

during these inspections, you must 

resume daily visual monitoring of that 

operation during each day that the 

process is in operation, in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section 

until you satisfy the criteria of this 

section to resume conducting weekly 

visual monitoring. 

(2) If the visual monitoring reveals the 

presence of any VE, you must initiate 

procedures to determine the cause of the 

emissions within 1 hour of the 

observations and alleviate the cause of 

the emissions within 3 hours by taking 

whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. 

(3) As an alternative to the monitoring 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(2) of this section, you may install, 

operate, and maintain a bag leak 

detection system for each fabric filter 

according to the requirements in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) If you own or operate new sources 

equipped with a fabric filter, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a bag leak 

detection system for each fabric filter 

according to paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Each bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

through (viii) of this section. 

(i) The bag leak detection system must 

be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 1 milligram per actual 

cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual 

cubic foot) or less. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

PM loadings. You must continuously 

record the output from the bag leak 

detection system using electronic or 

other means (e.g., using a strip chart 

recorder or a data logger). 

(iii) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will sound when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate 

loading over the alarm set point 

established according to paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm 

must be located such that it can be 

heard by the appropriate plant 

personnel. 

(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag 

leak detection system, you must 

establish, at a minimum, the baseline 

output by adjusting the sensitivity 

(range) and the averaging period of the 

device, the alarm set points, and the 

alarm delay time. 

(v) Following initial adjustment, you 

must not adjust the averaging period, 

alarm set point, or alarm delay time 

without approval from the 

Administrator or delegated authority, 

except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(1)(vi) of this section. 

(vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust 

the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 

system to account for seasonal effects, 

including temperature and humidity, 

according to the procedures identified 

in the site-specific monitoring plan 

required by paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. 

(vii) You must install the bag leak 

detection sensor downstream of the 

fabric filter. 

(viii) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(2) You must prepare a site-specific 

monitoring plan for each bag leak 

detection system. You must operate and 

maintain each bag leak detection system 

according to the plan at all times. Each 

monitoring plan must describe the items 

in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of 

this section. 

(i) Installation of the bag leak 

detection system; 

(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the bag leak detection system, including 

how the alarm set-point and alarm delay 

time will be established; 

(iii) Operation of the bag leak 

detection system, including quality 

assurance procedures; 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6527 

(iv) How the bag leak detection 

system will be maintained, including a 

routine maintenance schedule and spare 

parts inventory list; 

(v) How the bag leak detection system 

output will be recorded and stored; and 

(vi) Corrective action procedures as 

specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(3) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(4) of this section, you must initiate 

procedures to determine the cause of 

every alarm from a bag leak detection 

system within 1 hour of the alarm and 

alleviate the cause of the alarm within 

3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever 

corrective action(s) are necessary. 

Corrective actions may include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in PM emissions; 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media; 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device; 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment; 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system; or 

(4) You may take more than 3 hours 

to alleviate a specific condition that 

causes an alarm if you identify in the 

monitoring plan this specific condition 

as one that could lead to an alarm, 

adequately explain why it is not feasible 

to alleviate this condition within 3 

hours of the time the alarm occurs, and 

demonstrate that the requested time will 

ensure alleviation of this condition as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(d) If you use a control device other 

than a fabric filter for existing sources 

subject to § 63.11551(b), you must 

prepare and submit a monitoring plan to 

the permitting authority for approval. 

Each plan must contain the information 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) A description of the device; 

(2) Test results collected in 

accordance with § 63.11551(c) verifying 

the performance of the device for 

reducing PM emissions to the levels 

required by this subpart; 

(3) Operation and maintenance plan 

for the control device (including a 

preventive maintenance schedule 

consistent with the manufacturer’s 

instructions for routine and long-term 

maintenance); 

(4) A list of operating parameters that 

will be monitored to maintain 

continuous compliance with the 

applicable emission limit; and 

(5) Operating parameter limits based 

on monitoring data collected during the 

performance test. 

§ 63.11553 What are my notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping, 

requirements? 

(a) You must submit the Initial 

Notification required by § 63.9(b)(2) no 

later than 120 calendar days after [the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] or within 120 days 

after the source becomes subject to the 

standard. The Initial Notification must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section and may be combined with the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(1) The name and address of the 

owner or operator; 

(2) The address (i.e., physical 

location) of the affected source; and 

(3) An identification of the relevant 

standard, or other requirement, that is 

the basis of the notification and source’s 

compliance date. 

(b) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status required by 

§ 63.9(h) no later than 120 days after the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

§ 63.11546 unless you must conduct a 

performance test. If you must conduct a 

performance test, you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

within 60 days of completing the 

performance test. In addition to the 

information required in § 63.9(h)(2) and 

§ 63.11551, your notification must 

include the following certification(s) of 

compliance, as applicable, and signed 

by a responsible official: 

(1) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirements in § 63.11550(a)(1) to 

cover or enclose each melting furnace 

that is equipped with a cover or 

enclosure during the melting operation 

to the extent practicable’’. 

(2) ‘‘This facility complies with the 

requirement in § 63.11550(a)(2) to 

purchase and use only metal scrap that 

has been depleted (to the extent 

practicable) of aluminum foundry HAP, 

copper foundry HAP, or other 

nonferrous foundries HAP (as 

applicable) in the materials charged to 

the melting furnace, except for metal 

scrap that is purchased specifically for 

its HAP metal content for use in 

alloying’’. 

(3) ‘‘This facility has prepared and 

will operate by a written management 

practices plan according to 

§ 63.11550(a)(3).’’ 

(4) If the owner or operator of an 

existing affected source is certifying 

compliance based on the results of a 

previous performance test: ‘‘This facility 

complies with § 63.11550(b) based on a 

previous performance test in accordance 

with § 63.11551(b).’’ 

(4) This certification of compliance by 

the owner or operator that installs bag 

leak detection systems: ‘‘This facility 

has prepared a bag leak detection 

system monitoring plan in accordance 

with § 63.11552(c) and will operate each 

bag leak detection system according to 

the plan.’’ 

(c) You must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) As required in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), 

you must keep a copy of each 

notification that you submitted to 

comply with this subpart and all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted. 

(2) You must keep records to 

document conformance with the 

management practice plan required by 

§ 63.11550 as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) For melting furnaces equipped 

with a cover or enclosure, records must 

identify each melting furnace equipped 

with a cover or enclosure, the date and 

time of each melting operation, and that 

the procedures in the management 

practices plan were followed for each 

melting operation. These records may be 

in the form of a checklist. 

(ii) Records documenting your 

purchase and use of only metal scrap 

that has been depleted of HAP metals 

(to the extent practicable) charged to the 

melting furnace. If you purchase scrap 

metal specifically for the HAP metal 

content for use in alloying, records must 

show that the HAP metal is included in 

the material specifications for the cast 

metal product. 

(3) You must keep the records of all 

inspection and monitoring data required 

by §§ 63.11551 and 63.11552, and the 

information identified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for 

each required inspection or monitoring. 

(i) The date, place, and time of the 

monitoring event; 

(ii) Person conducting the monitoring; 

(iii) Technique or method used; 

(iv) Operating conditions during the 

activity; 

(v) Results, including the date, time, 

and duration of the period from the time 

the monitoring indicated a problem 

(e.g., VE) to the time that monitoring 

indicated proper operation; and 

(v) Maintenance or corrective action 

taken (if applicable). 

(4) If you own or operate new or 

existing sources at a copper foundry or 

other nonferrous foundry that is not 

subject to § 63.11550(b), you must 

maintain records to document that your 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
6528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

facility melts less than 6,000 tpy of 

metal. 

(5) If you use a bag leak detection 

system, you must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) Records of the bag leak detection 

system output. 

(ii) Records of bag leak detection 

system adjustments, including the date 

and time of the adjustment, the initial 

bag leak detection system settings, and 

the final bag leak detection system 

settings. 

(iii) The date and time of all bag leak 

detection system alarms, and for each 

valid alarm, the time you initiated 

corrective action, the corrective action 

taken, and the date on which corrective 

action was completed. 

(d) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). As specified in 

§ 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 

for 5 years following the date of each 

recorded action. You must keep each 

record onsite for at least 2 years after the 

date of each recorded action according 

to § 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the 

records offsite for the remaining 3 years. 

(e) If a deviation occurs during a 

semiannual reporting period, you must 

submit a compliance report to your 

permitting authority according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) The first reporting period covers 

the period beginning on the compliance 

date specified in § 63.11546 and ending 

on June 30 or December 31, whichever 

date comes first after your compliance 

date. Each subsequent reporting period 

covers the semiannual period from 

January 1 through June 30 or from July 

1 through December 31. Your 

compliance report must be postmarked 

or delivered no later than July 31 or 

January 31, whichever date comes first 

after the end of the semiannual 

reporting period. 

(2) A compliance report must include 

the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with the official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the truth, 

accuracy and completeness of the 

content of the report. 

(iii) Date of the report and beginning 

and ending dates of the reporting 

period. 

(iv) Identification of the affected 

source, the pollutant being monitored, 

applicable requirement, description of 

deviation, and corrective action taken. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11555 What General Provisions apply 

to this subpart? 

Table 1 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 

§ 63.11556 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

and in this section as follows: 

Aluminum foundry means a facility 

that melts aluminum and pours molten 

aluminum into molds to manufacture 

aluminum castings (except die casting). 

Aluminum foundry HAP means any 

compound of the following metals: 

beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, 

or nickel, or any of these metals in the 

elemental form. 

Bag leak detection system means a 

system that is capable of continuously 

monitoring relative particulate matter 

(i.e., dust) loadings in the exhaust of a 

baghouse to detect bag leaks and other 

upset conditions. A bag leak detection 

system includes, but is not limited to, 

an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light 

transmittance, or other effect to 

continuously monitor relative 

particulate matter loadings. 

Copper foundry means a facility that 

melts copper or copper-based alloys and 

pours molten copper or copper-based 

alloys into molds to manufacture copper 

or copper-based alloy castings 

(excluding die casting). 

Copper foundry HAP means any 

compound of any of the following 

metals: Lead, manganese, or nickel, or 

any of these metals in the elemental 

form. 

Material containing aluminum 

foundry HAP means a material 

containing one or more aluminum 

foundry HAP. Any material that 

contains beryllium, cadmium, lead, or 

nickel in amounts greater than or equal 

to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), 

or contains manganese in amounts 

greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by 

weight (as the metal), as shown in 

formulation data provided by the 

manufacturer or supplier, such as the 

Material Safety Data Sheet for the 

material, is considered to be a material 

containing aluminum foundry HAP. 

Material containing copper foundry 

HAP means a material containing one or 

more copper foundry HAP. Any 

material that contains lead or nickel in 

amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 

percent by weight (as the metal), or 

contains manganese in amounts greater 

than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight 

(as the metal), as shown in formulation 

data provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier, such as the Material Safety 

Data Sheet for the material, is 

considered to be a material containing 

copper foundry HAP. 

Material containing other nonferrous 

foundry HAP means a material 

containing one or more other nonferrous 

foundry HAP. Any material that 

contains chromium, lead, or nickel in 

amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 

percent by weight (as the metal), as 

shown in formulation data provided by 

the manufacturer or supplier, such as 

the Material Safety Data Sheet for the 

material, is considered to be a material 

containing other nonferrous foundry 

HAP. 

Melting operations means the 

collection of furnaces (e.g., induction, 

reverberatory, crucible, tower, dry 

hearth) used to melt metal ingot, alloyed 

ingot and/or metal scrap to produce 

molten metal that is poured into molds 

to make castings. 

Other nonferrous foundry means a 

facility that melts nonferrous metals 

other than aluminum, copper, or 

copper-based alloys and pours the 

nonferrous metals into molds to 

manufacture nonferrous metal castings 

(excluding die casting). 

Other nonferrous foundry HAP means 

any compound of the following metals: 

Chromium, lead, and nickel, or any of 

these metals in the elemental form. 

§ 63.11557 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a 

delegated authority, such as your State, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

your State, local, or tribal agency, then 

that agency has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. 

You should contact your U.S. EPA 

Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are 

not transferred to the State, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

applicability requirements in 

§ 63.11544, the compliance date 

requirements in § 63.11545, and the 

applicable standards in § 63.11550. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6529 

(2) Approval of an alternative 

nonopacity emissions standard under 

§ 63.6(g). 

(3) Approval of a major change to a 

test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). 

A ‘‘major change to test method’’ is 

defined in § 63.90(a). 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major 

change to monitoring’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90(a). 

(5) Approval of a waiver of 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

under § 63.10(f), or another major 

change to recordkeeping/reporting. A 

‘‘major change to recordkeeping/ 

reporting’’ is defined in § 63.90(a). 

§ 63.11558 [Reserved] 

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART ZZZZZZ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO ALUMINUM, COPPER, AND

OTHER NONFERROUS FOUNDRIES AREA SOURCES

As required in § 63.11555, ‘‘What General Provisions apply to this subpart?,’’ you must comply with each requirement in the following table that 

applies to you. 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart ZZZZZZ? Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), 

(a)(10)–(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), (e).

Applicability ............................................ Yes ................... § 63.11544(f) exempts affected sources 

from the obligation to obtain a title V 

operating permit. 

§ 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), 

(c)(4), (d).

Reserved ................................................ No.

§ 63.2 ....................................................... Definitions .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.3 ....................................................... Units and Abbreviations ......................... Yes.

§ 63.4 ....................................................... Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes.

§ 63.5 ....................................................... Preconstruction Review and Notification 

Requirements.

Yes.

§ 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)– 

(e)(3)(ix), (f)(2), (f)(3), (g), (i), (j).

Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.Yes.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ............................................... Compliance with Nonopacity Emission 

Standards.

No ..................... Subpart ZZZZZZ requires continuous 

compliance with all requirements in 

this subpart. 

§ 63.6(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(5)–(h)(9) ............. Compliance with Opacity and Visible 

Emission Limits.

No ..................... Subpart ZZZZZZ does not contain 

opacity or visible emission limits. 

§ 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), 

(e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv).

Reserved ................................................ No.

§ 63.7 ....................................................... Applicability and Performance Test 

Dates.

Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1), (b)(1), (f)(1)–(5), (g) ............ Monitoring Requirements ....................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(2)–(3), (c), (d), 

(e), (f)(6), (g).

Continuous Monitoring Systems ............ No ..................... Subpart ZZZZZZ does not require a 

flare or CPMS, COMS or CEMS. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) .............................................. [Reserved] .............................................. No.

§ 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)–(iii), (b)(5), (c), 

(d), (e), (h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (j).

Notification Requirements ...................... Yes ................... Subpart ZZZZZZ requires submission of 

Notification of Compliance Status 

within 120 days of compliance date 

unless a performance test is required. 

§ 63.9(b)(2)(iv)–(v), (b)(4), (f), (g), (i) ...... ................................................................ No.

§ 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ................................... Reserved ................................................ No.

§ 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)–(v), (vii), 

(vii)(C), (viii), (ix), (b)(3), (d)(1)–(2), 

(d)(4), (d)(5), (f).

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii)(A)–(B), (c), 

(d)(3), (e).

................................................................ No ..................... Subpart ZZZZZZ does not require a 

CPMS, COMS, CEMS, or opacity or 

visible emissions limit. 

§ 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ....................... Reserved ................................................ No.

§ 63.11 ..................................................... Control Device Requirements ................ No.

§ 63.12 ..................................................... State Authority and Delegations ............ Yes.

§§ 63.13–63.16 ........................................ Addresses, Incorporations by Reference, Availability of Information, 

Performance Track Provisions.

Yes.

[FR Doc. E9–2400 Filed 2–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS3