7210 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

safety or health standard may constitute 

a separate offense. The amount of the 

proposed civil penalty shall be based on 

the criteria set forth in sections 105(b) 

and 110(i) of the Mine Act. These 

criteria are: 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

TABLE XIV.—PENALTY CONVERSION

TABLE

Points Penalty ($) 

60 or fewer ........................... 112 

61 .......................................... 121 

62 .......................................... 131 

63 .......................................... 142 

64 .......................................... 154 

65 .......................................... 167 

66 .......................................... 181 

67 .......................................... 196 

68 .......................................... 212 

69 .......................................... 230 

70 .......................................... 249 

71 .......................................... 270 

72 .......................................... 293 

73 .......................................... 317 

74 .......................................... 343 

75 .......................................... 372 

76 .......................................... 403 

77 .......................................... 436 

78 .......................................... 473 

79 .......................................... 512 

80 .......................................... 555 

81 .......................................... 601 

82 .......................................... 651 

83 .......................................... 705 

84 .......................................... 764 

85 .......................................... 828 

86 .......................................... 897 

87 .......................................... 971 

88 .......................................... 1,052 

89 .......................................... 1,140 

90 .......................................... 1,235 

91 .......................................... 1,337 

92 .......................................... 1,449 

93 .......................................... 1,569 

94 .......................................... 1,700 

95 .......................................... 1,842 

96 .......................................... 1,995 

97 .......................................... 2,161 

98 .......................................... 2,341 

99 .......................................... 2,536 

100 ........................................ 2,748 

101 ........................................ 2,976 

102 ........................................ 3,224 

103 ........................................ 3,493 

104 ........................................ 3,784 

105 ........................................ 4,099 

106 ........................................ 4,440 

107 ........................................ 4,810 

108 ........................................ 5,211 

109 ........................................ 5,645 

110 ........................................ 6,115 

111 ........................................ 6,624 

112 ........................................ 7,176 

113 ........................................ 7,774 

114 ........................................ 8,421 

115 ........................................ 9,122 

116 ........................................ 9,882 

117 ........................................ 10,705 

118 ........................................ 11,597 

119 ........................................ 12,563 

120 ........................................ 13,609 

TABLE XIV.—PENALTY CONVERSION

TABLE—Continued 

Points Penalty ($) 

121 ........................................ 14,743 

122 ........................................ 15,971 

123 ........................................ 17,301 

124 ........................................ 18,742 

125 ........................................ 20,302 

126 ........................................ 21,993 

127 ........................................ 23,825 

128 ........................................ 25,810 

129 ........................................ 27,959 

130 ........................................ 30,288 

131 ........................................ 32,810 

132 ........................................ 35,543 

133 ........................................ 38,503 

134 ........................................ 41,574 

135 ........................................ 44,645 

136 ........................................ 47,716 

137 ........................................ 50,787 

138 ........................................ 53,858 

139 ........................................ 56,929 

140 ........................................ 60,000 

141 ........................................ 63,071 

142 ........................................ 66,142 

143 ........................................ 69,213 

144 or more .......................... 70,000 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 100.5 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 100.5 Determination of penalty amount; 

special assessment. 

* * * * * 

(c) Any operator who fails to correct 

a violation for which a citation has been 

issued under Section 104(a) of the Mine 

Act within the period permitted for its 

correction may be assessed a civil 

penalty of not more than $7,500 for each 

day during which such failure or 

violation continues. 

(d) Any miner who willfully violates 

the mandatory safety standards relating 

to smoking or the carrying of smoking 

materials, matches, or lighters shall be 

subject to a civil penalty of not more 

than $375 for each occurrence of such 

violation. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–2226 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0034; FRL–8522–4] 

RIN 2060–AM85 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and 

Steel Foundries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing amendments to 

the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

iron and steel foundries. These final 

amendments add alternative compliance 

options for cupolas at existing foundries 

and clarify several provisions to 

increase operational flexibility and 

improve understanding of the final rule 

requirements. 

DATES: These final amendments are 

effective on February 7, 2008. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in these amendments 

is approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of February 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0034. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Federal Docket Management System 

index at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and 

Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/DC, 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: Mr. 

Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (D243–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541–

5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207; email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7211 

III. Summary of the Final Amendments Made 

Since Proposal 

A. Emissions Limitations 

B. Work Practice Standards 

C. Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements 

D. Compliance with Alternative Emissions 

Limits 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

G. Definitions 

H. Applicability 

I. Editorial Corrections 

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses 

A. Language of Proposed Alternative 

Emissions Limits 

B. Mercury Emissions Limit 

C. Information on Mercury Switch 

Removal from Scrap Suppliers 

V. 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 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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by these final 

amendments include: 

Category NAICS code1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 331511 Iron foundries, Iron and steel plants. Automotive and large equipment manufacturers. 

331512 Steel investment foundries. 

331513 Steel foundries (except investment). 

Federal government .................................. ........................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government .................... ........................ Not affected. 

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 63.7682 of subpart EEEEE 

(NESHAP for Iron and Steel 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. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of this final 

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. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these 

final amendments is available only by 

filing a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by April 7, 2008. 

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

only an objection to these final 

amendments that was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review. Moreover, under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by these final amendments 

may not be challenged separately in any 

civil or criminal proceedings brought by 

EPA to enforce these requirements. 

II. Background Information 

The NESHAP for iron and steel 

foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEEEE) establishes emissions 

limitations and work practice 

requirements for the control of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

foundry operations. The NESHAP 

implements section 112(d) of the CAA 

by requiring all iron and steel foundries 

that are major sources of HAP to meet 

standards reflecting application of the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT). The compliance 

date for most of the subpart EEEEE 

requirements was April 23, 2007. 

After publication of the NESHAP (69 

FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the American 

Foundry Society, the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, and the 

Steel Founders’ Society of America filed 

petitions for reconsideration of the final 

rule. The American Foundry Society 

and the Steel Founders’ Society of 

America also filed petitions for review 

of the final rule (Steel Founders’ Society 

of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04–1190, 

DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society 

v. U.S. EPA, No. 04–1191, DC Cir.). The 

concerns raised by the petitioners 

regarding the work practice standards 

for scrap management have been 

resolved by rule amendments issued on 

May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel 

Founders’ Society of America petitioned 

the court for voluntary dismissal of their 

petition for review on March 23, 2006, 

and the court granted that petition on 

May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge 

to the NESHAP remaining before the 

court is the American Foundry Society 

petition for review, No. 04–1191. 

In accordance with section 113(g) of 

the CAA, EPA published a notice of a 

proposed settlement agreement between 

EPA and the petitioner (72 FR 1986, 

January 17, 2007) and provided a 30-day 

comment period which ended on 

February 16, 2007. The settlement 

agreement became final on March 9, 

2007. On April 17, 2007 (72 FR 19150), 

we proposed rule amendments which 

addressed the need for alternative 

emissions limits for cupolas at existing 

foundries and clarification of other rule 

requirements as set forth in Attachment 

A to the settlement agreement. The 

proposed amendments also included 

corrections to a few minor editorial 

errors. 

These final amendments are 

materially the same as the proposed 

amendments. EPA expects these final 

amendments to resolve the remaining 

issues raised by the petitioner. 

III. Summary of Final Amendments and 

Changes Made Since Proposal 

These final amendments include two 

changes since proposal. The first change 

is in the wording used to describe the 

emission limit for the new compliance 

option for cupola melting furnaces; 

instead of abbreviating the limit as lb/ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7212 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

ton of particulate matter (PM) (or total 

metal HAP), we expressly state the limit 

as pound of PM (or total metal HAP) per 

ton of metal charged. We intend this as 

a clarification, not as a substantive 

change from what we proposed. We are 

also correcting a publication error in the 

definition of ‘‘deviation’’ as published at 

72 FR 19164. All other final 

amendments are exactly as proposed. 

A. Emissions Limitations 

1. New Compliance Options for Cupola 

Metal Melting Furnaces 

These final amendments add a new 

compliance option to § 73.7690(a)(2) of 

the NESHAP. The new alternative 

emissions limits for cupola metal 

melting furnaces at existing iron and 

steel foundries allows the use of control 

technologies that are designed on a mass 

removal basis rather than an outlet 

concentration basis. The levels of the 

new alternative emissions limits are the 

same as proposed: 0.10 pound of PM per 

ton of metal charged or 0.008 pound of 

total HAP per ton of metal charged. In 

response to public comment, we have 

revised the manner in which the 

emissions limits are stated in the rule 

for clarity. We have also revised 

associated compliance provisions in 

§§ 63.7732(b)(6) and (c)(6), 

63.7734(a)(2)(iii) and (iv), and 

63.7743(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to refer to the 

new alternative limits in terms of 

pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal 

charged or pounds of total metal HAP 

per ton of metal charged instead of lb/ 

ton of PM or lb/ton of total metal HAP, 

respectively. 

2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit 

These final amendments specify that 

the opacity limitations apply only to 

buildings that house iron and steel 

foundry emissions sources. If 

nonfoundry operations are housed in 

the same building as the foundry 

operations, the foundry must comply 

with the opacity limits for that building. 

3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit 

These final amendments replace the 

reference to test conditions (‘‘as 

determined when scrubbing with fresh 

acid solution’’) with the phrase 

‘‘according to the performance test 

procedures in § 63.7732(g)’’ since 

§ 63.7732(g) contains the requirement to 

conduct the test when scrubbing with 

fresh acid solution. 

B. Work Practice Standards 

1. Capture and Collection Systems 

These final amendments delete the 

word ‘‘standard’’ from 40 CFR 

63.7690(b)(1) to clarify that capture and 

collection systems are required for 

emissions sources subject to an 

emissions limit but not for emissions 

sources subject to work practice 

standards. 

2. Scrap Management 

These final amendments specify that 

‘‘chlorinated’’ plastics are to be removed 

from the scrap material (instead of all 

plastic). These final amendments also 

revise the requirement in 40 CFR 

63.7700(c)(2) for the owner or operator 

to obtain and maintain onsite a copy of 

the procedures used by the scrap 

supplier for either removing accessible 

mercury switches or for purchasing 

automobile bodies that have had the 

switches removed. These final 

amendments include an alternative 

procedure that allows the plant to 

document their attempts to obtain a 

copy of the procedures from the scrap 

suppliers servicing their area. We note, 

however, that under 40 CFR 

63.7700(c)(2) the materials acquisition 

program must specify that the scrap 

supplier remove accessible mercury 

switches from the trunks and hoods of 

any automotive bodies contained in the 

scrap in addition to accessible lead 

components such as batteries and wheel 

weights. It is incumbent on the foundry 

owner or operator to communicate these 

specifications to their scrap suppliers. 

3. Scrap Preheaters 

The existing rule requires the owner 

or operator to install, operate, and 

maintain a gas-fired preheater according 

to 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(1) or charge only 

certain materials according to 40 CFR 

63.7700(e)(2). These final amendments 

revise the language of § 63.7700(e)(1) to 

clarify that foundries are not required to 

install gas-fired preheaters when not 

necessary for foundry operations. It was 

not our intent to mandate installation of 

preheaters, but rather to establish 

requirements for those existing facilities 

that use scrap preheaters in lieu of 

selecting the option in 40 CFR 

63.7700(e)(2). Therefore, these final 

amendments clarify § 63.7700(e)(1) by 

deleting the word ‘‘install’’. Instead, 

these final amendments require the 

owner or operator to operate and 

maintain a gas-fired preheater where the 

flame directly contacts the scrap 

charged. 

C. Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements 

These final amendments clarify that 

the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2) 

applies to each capture and collection 

system and control device for an 

emissions source subject to a PM, metal 

HAP, triethylamine (TEA), or volatile 

organic hazardous pollutants (VOHAP) 

emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). 

D. Compliance With Alternative 

Emissions Limits 

The existing NESHAP establishes PM 

emissions limits and alternative 

emissions limits expressed in total 

metal HAP for cupolas and other 

foundry processes. These final 

amendments clarify our original intent 

to allow foundries to demonstrate 

compliance with any of the applicable 

alternative emissions limitations that 

are provided for a specific emissions 

source. When multiple alternative 

emissions limitations are provided for a 

specific emissions source, iron and steel 

foundries can demonstrate initial 

compliance with any of the alternative 

limits; they are not required to comply 

with all of the alternative emissions 

limits at any one time. These final 

amendments also clarify a facility’s 

ability to change their selected 

compliance alternative and the 

procedures needed to effect that change. 

However, regarding continuous 

compliance, the facility is expected to 

continuously comply with the 

alternative emissions limit that was 

selected as their compliance option as 

demonstrated in their most recent 

performance test. The facility may 

choose to alter their selected alternative 

but must continue to comply with the 

previously selected alternative until 

they successfully demonstrate 

compliance with the new alternative 

emissions limitation. 

We are also finalizing requirements 

for determining initial compliance for 

cupola melting furnaces at existing iron 

and steel foundries that are subject to 

the new mass rate emissions limit. The 

final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) 

and (c) include new equations for 

determining PM or total metal HAP 

emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton of 

metal charged format. Other 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and 

(c) clarify test methods source sampling 

requirements. 

1. Single Performance Test for Control 

Devices Serving Multiple Units 

Section 63.7734 of the NESHAP 

requires iron and steel foundries to 

demonstrate initial compliance with PM 

emissions limits by conducting a 

performance test for each process unit 

according to the procedures in 40 CFR 

63.7732. One petitioner pointed out that 

a common emissions control system 

may serve two similar or identical 

cupolas or serve multiple furnaces or 

process units. According to the 

petitioner, a requirement for separate 

tests of the control device while the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7213 

emissions sources are operating is 

redundant and imposes unnecessary 

costs because the control device should 

perform the same on each identical 

furnace. These final amendments 

resolve the petitioner’s concern by 

adding a new provision to the 

performance test requirements. As 

proposed, the final amendment requires 

foundries to submit a site-specific test 

plan for the situation described by the 

petitioner or other situations not 

expressly considered in 40 CFR 63.7734. 

The site-specific test plan, which is 

subject to approval by the 

Administrator, will explain the 

procedures that would be followed 

during the test, such as operation of the 

unit or units at the maximum operating 

condition of the control system. The 

Administrator or delegated authority 

will determine on a case-by-case basis if 

one representative furnace/control 

device configuration may be tested. 

2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc 

Furnaces, Electric Induction Furnaces, 

and Scrap Preheaters 

As proposed, we are clarifying the 

sampling instructions in 40 CFR 

63.7732(c)(4) and (5) to state that the 

initial compliance demonstrations for 

electric arc metal melting furnaces, 

electric induction metal melting 

furnaces, and scrap preheaters must be 

conducted under normal production 

conditions. These final amendments 

require sampling during normal 

operating conditions, which may 

include charging, melting, alloying, 

refining, slagging, and tapping (for a 

furnace) or charging, heating, and 

discharging (for a scrap preheater). 

3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total 

Metal HAP 

As proposed, these final amendments 

remove the requirement in 40 CFR 

63.7732(c)(2) for a minimum sample 

volume for test runs by EPA Method 29 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) because 

the method already includes such a 

requirement. 

4. Opacity Test 

Section 63.7732(d) of the existing 

NESHAP establishes the requirements 

for opacity tests. These final 

amendments instruct the certified 

observer how to take opacity readings 

by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A) for a building that has many 

openings. As proposed, these final 

amendments allow the observer to take 

readings from a limited number of 

openings or vents that appear to have 

the highest opacities instead of making 

observations for each opening or vent 

from the building or structure. 

Alternatively, a single observation for 

the entire building is allowed if the 

fugitive release points afford such an 

observation. These final amendments 

also revise the language of 40 CFR 

63.7732(d)(2) to clarify that opacity tests 

are to be conducted during PM 

performance tests, but that PM 

performance tests are not required to 

occur during the semiannual opacity 

tests. 

5. Alternative Test Method 

Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the existing 

NESHAP requires the use of EPA 

Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) 

to determine the TEA concentration of 

gases from the TEA cold box mold or 

core-making line. As proposed, these 

final amendments allow NIOSH Method 

2010, ‘‘Amines, Aliphatic’’

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) 

as an alternative to EPA Method 18 (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A) provided the 

performance requirements outlined in 

section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are 

satisfied. Method 2010 is included in 

the NIOSH Manual of Analytical 

Methods (4th edition, NIOSH 

Publication 94–113, August 1994). The 

manual is available from the 

Government Printing Office and the 

National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS), NTIS publication No. 

PB95154191. The NIOSH method may 

also be found on the NIOSH Web site at 

the following address: www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/nmam/method-4000.html. 

6. Procedures for Establishing Operating 

Limits 

As proposed, these final amendments 

clarify the procedures for establishing 

control device operating limits in 40 

CFR 63.7733(b) through (d) by deleting 

the reference to the 3-hour average from 

the test procedures. These final 

amendments specify that the owner or 

operator is to compute and record the 

average operating parameter value for 

each valid sampling run in which the 

applicable limit is met. 

7. Repeat Performance Tests 

As proposed, these final amendments 

revise the requirements for repeat 

performance in 40 CFR 63.7731(a) to 

clarify that demonstrating compliance 

by one method does not preclude a 

plant from demonstrating compliance 

using an alternative method at a later 

date. A plant may elect to demonstrate 

compliance with an alternative 

emissions limit during the repeat 

performance tests conducted at least 

every 5 years. Furthermore, a plant may 

elect to conduct a performance test 

earlier than 5 years in order to change 

an operating limit or to demonstrate 

compliance with a different alternative 

emissions limit. A test conducted for the 

purpose of changing operating limits is 

subject to notification requirements in 

40 CFR 63.7750(d). 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

1. Baghouse Monitoring Requirements 

Section 63.7740(b) of the existing 

NESHAP requires a bag leak detection 

system for each negative pressure 

baghouse and for each positive pressure 

baghouse equipped with a stack where 

the baghouse is applied to meet any PM 

or total metal HAP emissions limitation 

in subpart EEEEE. This provision also 

requires inspection of each baghouse 

according to the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.7740(b)(1) through (8). As proposed, 

these final amendments include 

monitoring requirements for the visual 

inspection of positive pressure 

baghouses that are not equipped with a 

stack. As proposed, these final 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740(b) 

clarify the text to ensure that the 

requirements in this paragraph for 

installing and using a bag leak detection 

system apply only to negative pressure 

baghouses and positive pressure 

baghouses equipped with a stack. The 

inspection requirements are separated 

and placed in a new paragraph (c) and 

clarified to state that the inspection 

requirements apply to each baghouse 

regardless of type. These final 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740 also 

renumber the paragraphs which follow 

new paragraph (c). Similar clarifications 

are made to the requirements for 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

in 40 CFR 63.7743(c). 

2. Demonstration of Initial Compliance 

With Bag Leak Detection System 

Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements 

Section 63.7736(c) of the existing 

NESHAP instructs the owner or operator 

how to demonstrate initial compliance 

with the requirements for bag leak 

detection systems. Under 40 CFR 

63.7736(c)(1), the owner or operator 

must submit the bag leak detection 

system monitoring plan to the 

Administrator for approval according to 

the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7710(b). 

As proposed, these final amendments to 

40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1) revise this 

provision to clarify that submission of 

the monitoring plan independent of the 

operation and maintenance plan is not 

necessary. Our intent is to include the 

bag leak detection system information in 

the operation and maintenance plan to 

streamline the approval process and 

avoid the administrative costs 

associated with a separate submission. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7214 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition, having one integrated plan 

will provide a centralized reference tool 

for control device operation and 

maintenance requirements. 

3. Installation, Operation, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Monitors 

As proposed, these final amendments 

revise the requirements for operation 

and maintenance of continuous 

parameter monitoring systems to more 

clearly describe the inspection 

requirements. Under the operation and 

maintenance requirements for flow 

measurement devices in 40 CFR 

63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator 

must perform monthly inspections of all 

flow sensor components for integrity, all 

electrical connections for continuity, 

and all mechanical connections for 

leakage. These final amendments 

change this provision to require a 

monthly visual inspection of all 

components, including all electrical and 

mechanical connections for proper 

functioning. The same changes are made 

to the monthly inspection requirements 

for other types of monitoring devices in 

§§ 63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi), (c)(2)(iv), 

(d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv). 

As proposed, these final amendments 

also revise the requirement for pressure 

measurement devices in 40 CFR 

63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 

63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ‘‘daily check of 

the pressure tap for pluggage.’’ We are 

requiring a daily check for pluggage 

when using a regular pressure tap and 

a monthly check when using a nonclogging pressure tap. These final 

amendments also clarify the 

requirements for pressure measurement 

devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 

40 CFR 63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the 

use of a manometer or equivalent device 

for calibrations. 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

As proposed, these final amendments 

clarify two of the recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4). 

The requirement for the annual quantity 

of chemical binder or coating materials 

used to make molds and cores is revised 

to require the annual quantity of 

chemical binder or coating materials 

used to coat or make molds and cores. 

(We inadvertently omitted the word 

‘‘coat’’ from the original rule language.) 

The final requirement for records of the 

annual quantity of HAP used states that 

records are required of the annual 

quantity of HAP used in these chemical 

binder or coating materials at the 

foundry, as calculated from the recorded 

quantities and chemical compositions 

(from Material Data Safety Sheet or 

other documentation). This final 

amendment clarifies that the HAP 

records requirement is specific to the 

chemicals used in the mold and coremaking and coating operations and not 

to other HAP materials used at the 

foundry such as solvents used to clean 

or degrease equipment. 

These final amendments to the 

reporting requirements allow foundries 

to report the results of the semiannual 

opacity tests within the semiannual 

reports rather than having to submit 

these semiannual documents separately. 

Other final amendments to the reporting 

requirements clarify the requirements 

for an immediate startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction report by adding the 

same language used in 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(ii). These final amendments 

require an immediate report if a foundry 

has a startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

and exceeds any applicable emissions 

limitation in 40 CFR 63.7690. 

G. Definitions 

We are amending the definition of the 

term ‘‘Deviation’’ in 40 CFR 63.7765 to 

clarify that the enforcement authority 

determines if a deviation is a violation. 

The proposed amendment appeared at 

72 FR 19164: however, due to a 

publication error, the new language was 

added after the first sentence of the 

original definition, rather than at the 

end. In these final amendments, we are 

correcting the placement of the new 

language. 

As proposed, we are adding 

definitions of the terms ‘‘off blast’’ and 

‘‘on blast’’ to 40 CFR 63.7765. The term 

‘‘off blast’’ is defined as those periods of 

cupola operation when the cupola is not 

actively being used to produce molten 

metal. Off-blast conditions include 

cupola startup procedures as defined in 

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan. Off-blast conditions also include 

idling conditions when the blast air is 

turned off or down to the point that the 

cupola does not produce additional 

molten metal. The term ‘‘on blast’’

means those periods of cupola operation 

when combustion (blast) air is 

introduced to the cupola furnace and 

the furnace is capable of producing 

molten metal. On blast conditions are 

characterized by both blast air 

introduction and molten metal 

production. 

As proposed, these final amendments 

revise the definition of ‘‘total metal 

HAP’’ to specify the analytes to be 

included and how non-detect values are 

to be used in calculating the total metal 

HAP quantity. The definition of ‘‘total 

metal HAP’’ is the sum of the 

concentrations of antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium as measured by EPA Method 

29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only 

the measured concentration of the listed 

analytes that are present at 

concentrations exceeding one-half of the 

quantification limit of the analytical 

method are used in the sum. If any of 

the analytes are not detected or are 

detected at concentrations less than onehalf the quantification limit of the 

analytical method, the concentration of 

those analytes is assumed to be zero for 

the purposes of calculating the total 

metal HAP for this subpart. 

As proposed, we are also clarifying 

the definition of ‘‘scrap preheater’’ to 

differentiate scrap dryers that are used 

solely to remove moisture from the 

scrap metal from scrap preheaters. The 

revised definition of ‘‘scrap preheater’’

states that scrap dryers, which are used 

solely to remove water from metal scrap 

that does not contain any volatile 

impurities or other tramp materials, are 

not considered to be scrap preheaters for 

purposes of this subpart. 

H. Applicability 

As proposed, we are revising the 

applicability provisions in 40 CFR 

63.7681 to reference the definition of 

‘‘major source’’ in 40 CFR 63.2. This 

amendment clarifies that when we refer 

to a ‘‘major source’’ of hazardous air 

pollutants in 40 CFR 63.7681, we are 

referring to the definition of major 

source in 40 CFR 63.2, and not, for 

example, to the definition of major 

source in 40 CFR 51.166. 

I. Editorial Corrections 

As proposed, we are correcting a 

grammatical error in 40 CFR 63.7710(b), 

which should refer to an emissions 

source subject to a (rather than ‘‘an’’) 

PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP 

emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). A 

comma is added to 40 CFR 

63.7734(a)(11). The words ‘‘as possible’’

are added to 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i). 

The final amendments also correct a 

misspelling of the word ‘‘calendar’’ in 

40 CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii). 

IV. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

A. Language of Proposed Alternative 

Emissions Limits 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the proposed alternative 

standards for PM or total metal HAP and 

conforming amendments. However, the 

commenter believed that the wording of 

the proposed limit for total metal HAP 

is ambiguous even though the meaning 

is clear in context. According to the 

commenter, the proposed limit for total 

metal HAP (0.008 lb/ton of total metal 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7215 

1The State of New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection mercury regulations for 

iron and steel scrap melting specify that mercury 

emissions from each melter shall not exceed 35 

megagrams per ton of steel produced. Alternatively, 

mercury emissions as measured at the exit of the 

mercury control apparatus must be reduced by at 

least 75 percent (N.J.A.C. 7:27–27.6). These rules 

have been upheld by the Appellate Division of the 

State Superior Court. 

HAP) could be construed to mean that 

the standard is 0.008 pounds of some 

unspecified substance per ton of total 

metal HAP emitted. The commenter 

recommended that EPA clarify the 

language to read ‘‘0.008 pounds of total 

metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal 

charged’’ which would be consistent 

with the language in § 63.7690(a)(ii) for 

the proposed alternative PM limit. 

Response: Section 63.7690(a)(2)(ii) of 

the proposed amendments establishes 

the alternative limit for PM as 0.10 

pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal 

charged; the lb/ton abbreviation is then 

used in § 63.7690(a)(2)(iv) for the total 

metal HAP limit. While we agree with 

the commenter that the meaning is clear 

in context, we have revised the language 

for the total metal HAP limit to read 

according to the commenter’s 

suggestion. For additional clarity, we 

have revised the wording of both limits 

when they appear in conforming 

amendments to read ‘‘pound of PM per 

ton (lb/ton) of metal charged’’ and 

‘‘pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ 

ton) of metal charged.’’

B. Mercury Emissions Limit 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA adopt standalone mercury emissions standards 

similar to those in New Jersey.1 The 

commenter explained that the rule 

requires iron and steel melters (at both 

foundries and steel production plants) 

to meet a mercury emissions limit of 35 

milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel 

produced or, in the alternative, reduce 

mercury emissions by 75 percent using 

a mercury control apparatus. The 

emission limit, which becomes effective 

in January 2010, can be achieved 

through source separation measures 

and, if necessary, additional exhaust 

controls. According to the commenter, 

the emissions limit determines the 

success of the source separation 

program and the need for add-on 

mercury control measures on the melter 

exhaust. The commenter stated that one 

foundry had recently installed an 

activated carbon injection system for 

mercury control and a baghouse serving 

the cupola and that test results show 

greater than 90 percent mercury control 

and emissions less than 3 mg/ton. 

According to the commenter, other 

facilities with existing fabric filter 

control are testing carbon injection and 

have reported compliance with the 

mercury emissions limit but have not 

submitted formal test results. 

Response: As described in the 

preamble to the final NESHAP for Iron 

and Steel Foundries (69 FR 21906, April 

22, 2004), the control systems used at 

iron and steel foundries at the time the 

NESHAP was developed were not 

effective in reducing mercury emissions. 

The pollution prevention measure of 

removing mercury switches from 

automotive scrap was determined to be 

a cost-effective ‘‘beyond the MACT 

floor’’ requirement and was included as 

a requirement in the final NESHAP as 

part of the scrap selection and 

inspection program. The final NESHAP 

was projected to reduce mercury 

emissions by 2,800 pounds per year at 

a cost of $3.6 million per year (which 

includes increased cost of scrap for 

removing the mercury switches). We 

recognize that there are other mercurycontaining devices in automotive scrap 

so that the pollution prevention 

program required by the final NESHAP 

does not eliminate all mercury from the 

scrap. At the time the NESHAP was 

developed, we considered requirements 

for more stringent mercury reduction 

requirements, either through additional 

scrap inspection and selection 

inspection requirements specific to 

other mercury-containing devices or 

through innovative mercury controls. 

Based on the small quantities of 

mercury in these other devices, these 

options were determined to be costineffective. 

A re-evalulation of the MACT floor for 

the Iron and Steel NESHAP in light of 

new control systems added to iron and 

steel foundries since the NESHAP was 

first promulgated is outside the scope of 

the current package of amendments. We 

did not include or take comment on a 

separate mercury limit in our April 17, 

2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Therefore, we are not including specific 

emission limits for mercury in the final 

amendments. A technology review of 

the MACT standards is required by the 

CAA eight years after promulgation. 

These newly installed mercury controls 

will be considered in detail during this 

technology review. 

C. Information on Mercury Switch 

Removal From Scrap Suppliers 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA should not revise § 63.7700(b)(2) to 

eliminate the requirement that facilities 

buy scrap only from suppliers willing to 

provide a copy of their procedures for 

ensuring that mercury switches are 

removed from automobile bodies that 

they supply. The commenter believed 

that no supplier will do this unless 

foundries require it because suppliers 

that do provide a copy of their 

procedures will be at a disadvantage to 

suppliers that either do not remove the 

mercury switches or are unwilling to 

document their removal procedures. 

According to the commenter, under the 

proposed amendments, suppliers would 

not be penalized as they are under the 

existing rule. 

The commenter stated that this 

proposed amendment increases mercury 

emissions and that EPA did not provide 

an estimate of the health, 

environmental, and economic impacts 

of the increase. The commenter also 

claimed that because of limitations 

currently enforced on some sources, the 

proposed amendment reduces the 

stringency of the rule below the MACT 

floor for new sources and possibly for 

existing sources. According to the 

commenter, the proposed amendment is 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

Response: The amendment does not 

absolve the iron and steel foundry from 

the responsibility to use automotive 

scrap that has had accessible mercury 

switches removed. In previous 

amendments to the NESHAP (70 FR 

29400, May 20, 2005), we included 

provisions for foundries to perform 

inspections at the scrap supplier. Thus, 

the foundry should be able to verify 

whether the supplier in fact removes 

accessible mercury switches. The reason 

for the amendment is to clarify that EPA 

is not imposing a regulatory burden on 

the scrap supplier through this rule. 

EPA is not requiring scrap suppliers to 

provide the foundry with written 

procedures for ensuring the mercury 

switches are removed. Nevertheless, 

because we require foundries to 

purchase only automotive scrap that has 

had accessible mercury switches 

removed from the trunks and hoods of 

automobile bodies, a foundry is much 

more likely to do business with a scrap 

supplier that supplies written 

procedures than with one that does not. 

It is incumbent on the foundry to 

document their attempt to obtain 

written procedures and to ensure, 

through site inspections or other means, 

that any automotive scrap that they 

purchase from their suppliers has had 

accessible mercury switches removed 

from the trunks and hoods. 

V. 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, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7216 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. These 

final amendments add a new 

compliance alternative, allow a new 

alternative test method, and clarify 

requirements in the existing rule. One 

amendment to the baghouse monitoring 

requirements clarifies our original intent 

to require inspections of positive 

pressure baghouses not equipped with a 

stack. No new burden is associated with 

this requirement because the burden 

was included in the approved 

information collection request (ICR) for 

the existing rule. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0543, EPA ICR 

number 2096.03. A copy of the OMBapproved ICR may be obtained from 

Susan Auby, Collection Strategies 

Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 

566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and 

providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

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 these final amendments on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business that meets the 

Small Business Administration size 

standards for small businesses found at 

13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 

employees for NAICS codes 331511, 

331512, and 331513); (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of these final amendments on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

There would not be any adverse 

impacts on any source (including any 

small entity) as a result of the final 

amendments because the final 

amendments do not create any new 

requirements or burdens that were not 

already included in the economic 

impact assessment for the existing rule. 

These final amendments relieve 

regulatory burden for all entities as a 

result of the operational flexibility 

afforded by the alternative compliance 

option, alternative test method, and 

provisions allowing plants to combine 

multiple reports into a single 

submission. We have therefore 

concluded that these final amendments 

will relieve regulatory burden for all 

affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that these final 

amendments do 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 the private sector in any one year. 

The final amendments are expected to 

result in an overall reduction in 

expenditures for the private sector and 

are not expected to impact State, local, 

or tribal governments. Thus, the final 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. EPA has determined that 

these final amendments contain no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. These final amendments 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7217 

contain no requirements that apply to 

such governments, and 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.’’

These final amendments do not have 

federalism implications. They will 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. These final 

amendments do not impose any 

requirements on State and local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to these final 

amendments. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ These final amendments 

do not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

These final amendments impose no 

requirements on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to these final amendments. 

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. These final amendments are 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because they are based on technology 

performance and not on health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

These final amendments are not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because they are not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, 

Section 12(d), 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. The VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

These final amendments involve 

technical standards. Therefore the 

Agency conducted a search to identify 

potential VCS in addition to the EPA 

and alternative method. However, we 

identified no such standards and none 

were brought to our attention in 

comments. Therefore EPA has decided 

to use an alternative methodology, the 

NIOSH Method 2010, ‘‘Amines, 

Aliphatic’’ (incorporated by reference in 

§ 63.14) for EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A) to determine the TEA 

concentration of gases from the TEA 

cold box mold or core making line 

provided the performance requirements 

outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 

18 are satisfied. 

For the methods required or 

referenced by these final amendments, 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 under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) 

of subpart A of the General Provisions. 

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 these final 

amendments will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because they do not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. These final 

amendments do not relax the control 

measures on sources regulated by the 

rule and therefore will not cause 

emissions increases from these sources. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing these final 

amendments and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the final 

amendments in the Federal Register. A 

major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

These final amendments will be 

effective on February 7, 2008. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7218 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 23, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

part 63, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is 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 adding 

paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(2) The following method as 

published in the National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) test method compendium, 

‘‘NIOSH Manual of Analytical 

Methods’’, NIOSH publication no. 94–

113, Fourth Edition, August 15, 1994. 

(i) NIOSH Method 2010, ‘‘Amines, 

Aliphatic,’’ Issue 2, August 15, 1994, 

IBR approved for § 63.7732(g)(1)(v) of 

Subpart EEEEE of this part. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

Subpart EEEEE—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.7681 is amended by 

revising the second sentence to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart? 

* * * Your iron and steel foundry is 

a major source of HAP for purposes of 

this subpart if it emits or has the 

potential to emit any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons 

or more per year or if it is located at a 

facility that emits or has the potential to 

emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons 

or more per year or any combination of 

HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year 

as defined in § 63.2. 

■ 4. Section 63.7690 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11)(i) and 

(ii); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.7690 What emissions limitations must 

I meet? 

(a) You must meet the emissions 

limits or standards in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (11) of this section that apply to 

you. When alternative emissions 

limitations are provided for a given 

emissions source, you are not restricted 

in the selection of which applicable 

alternative emissions limitation is used 

to demonstrate compliance. 

* * * * * 

(2) For each cupola metal melting 

furnace at an existing iron and steel 

foundry, you must not discharge 

emissions through a conveyance to the 

atmosphere that exceed either the limit 

for PM in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section or, alternatively the limit for 

total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) 

or (iv) of this section: 

(i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM; or 

(ii) 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) 

of metal charged, or 

(iii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP; 

or 

(iv) 0.008 pound of total metal HAP 

per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged. 

* * * * * 

(7) For each building or structure 

housing any iron and steel foundry 

emissions source at the iron and steel 

foundry, you must not discharge any 

fugitive emissions to the atmosphere 

from foundry operations that exhibit 

opacity greater than 20 percent (6- 

minute average), except for one 6- 

minute average per hour that does not 

exceed 27 percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(11) * * * 

(i) You must not discharge emissions 

of TEA through a conveyance to the 

atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as 

determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g); or 

(ii) You must reduce emissions of 

TEA from each TEA cold box mold or 

core making line by at least 99 percent, 

as determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g). 

(b) * * * 

(1) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a capture and collection 

system for all emissions sources subject 

to an emissions limit for VOHAP or TEA 

in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.7700 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the last sentence in 

paragraph (b); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and 

(ii); 

■ c. Revising the last sentence in 

paragraph (c)(2); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7700 What work practice standards 

must I meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Any post-consumer engine 

blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily 

turnings that are processed and/or 

cleaned to the extent practicable such 

that the materials do not include lead 

components, mercury switches, 

chlorinated plastics, or free organic 

liquids can be included in this 

certification. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) For scrap charged to a scrap 

preheater, electric arc metal melting 

furnace, or electric induction metal 

melting furnace, specifications for scrap 

materials to be depleted (to the extent 

practicable) of the presence of used oil 

filters, chlorinated plastic parts, organic 

liquids, and a program to ensure the 

scrap materials are drained of free 

liquids; or 

(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola 

metal melting furnace, specifications for 

scrap materials to be depleted (to the 

extent practicable) of the presence of 

chlorinated plastic, and a program to 

ensure the scrap materials are drained of 

free liquids. 

(2) * * * You must either obtain and 

maintain onsite a copy of the 

procedures used by the scrap supplier 

for either removing accessible mercury 

switches or for purchasing automobile 

bodies that have had mercury switches 

removed, as applicable, or document 

your attempts to obtain a copy of these 

procedures from the scrap suppliers 

servicing your area. 

(3) * * * 

(iii) The inspection procedures must 

include provisions for rejecting or 

returning entire or partial scrap 

shipments that do not meet 

specifications and limiting purchases 

from vendors whose shipments fail to 

meet specifications for more than three 

inspections in one calendar year. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) You must operate and maintain a 

gas-fired preheater where the flame 

directly contacts the scrap charged; or 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.7710 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(b) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.7710 What are my operation and 

maintenance requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must prepare and operate at 

all times according to a written 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7219 

operation and maintenance plan for 

each capture and collection system and 

control device for an emissions source 

subject to a PM, metal HAP, TEA, or 

VOHAP emissions limit in § 63.7690(a). 

* * * 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.7731 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7731 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) You must conduct subsequent 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with all applicable PM or 

total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA 

emissions limitations in § 63.7690 for 

your iron and steel foundry no less 

frequently than every 5 years and each 

time you elect to change an operating 

limit or to comply with a different 

alternative emissions limit, if 

applicable. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.7732 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Redesignating Equations 1 through 

5 as Equations 3 through 7; 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5) and 

adding paragraph (b)(6) containing 

Equation 1; 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(5) 

and adding paragraph (c)(6) containing 

Equation 2; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text, adding two sentences to the end of 

paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph 

(d)(2); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (e)(3); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and 

(f)(3); 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2), 

and (g)(4); 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), 

(h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and 

■ j. Adding paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7732 What test methods and other 

procedures must I use to demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emissions 

limitations? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test that applies to your 

iron and steel foundry based on your 

selected compliance alternative, if 

applicable, according to the 

requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and the 

conditions specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (i) of this section. 

(b) To determine compliance with the 

applicable emissions limit for PM in 

§ 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal 

melting furnace, scrap preheater, 

pouring station, or pouring area, follow 

the test methods and procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) For electric arc and electric 

induction metal melting furnaces, 

sample only during normal production 

conditions, which may include, but are 

not limited to the following cycles: 

Charging, melting, alloying, refining, 

slagging, and tapping. 

(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only 

during normal production conditions, 

which may include, but are not limited 

to the following cycles: Charging, 

heating, and discharging. 

(6) Determine the total mass of metal 

charged to the furnace or scrap 

preheater. For a cupola metal melting 

furnace at an existing iron and steel 

foundry that is subject to the PM 

emissions limit in § 63.7690(a)(ii), 

calculate the PM emissions rate in 

pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal 

charged using Equation 1 of this section: 

EF C Q

M

t

7,000 Eq.1) PM PM

charge

test = ×















 × 



 



 (

Where: 

EFPM = Mass emissions rate of PM, pounds 

of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; 

CPM = Concentration of PM measured during 

performance test run, gr/dscf; 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry 

standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm); 

Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during 

performance test run, tons; 

ttest = Duration of performance test run, 

minutes; and 

7,000 = Unit conversion factor, grains per 

pound (gr/lb). 

(c) To determine compliance with the 

applicable emissions limit for total 

metal HAP in § 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) 

for a metal melting furnace, scrap 

preheater, pouring station, or pouring 

area, follow the test methods and 

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(6) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) A minimum of three valid test 

runs are needed to comprise a 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(4) For electric arc and electric 

induction metal melting furnaces, 

sample only during normal production 

conditions, which may include, but are 

not limited to the following cycles: 

Charging, melting, alloying, refining, 

slagging, and tapping. 

(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only 

during normal production conditions, 

which may include, but are not limited 

to the following cycles: Charging, 

heating, and discharging. 

(6) Determine the total mass of metal 

charged to the furnace or scrap 

preheater during each performance test 

run and calculate the total metal HAP 

emissions rate (pounds of total metal 

HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged) 

using Equation 2 of this section: 

EF C Q

M

t

7,000 Eq. 2) TMHAP TMHAP

charge

test = ×















 × 



 



 (

Where: 

EFTMHAP = Emissions rate of total metal HAP, 

pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ 

ton) of metal charged; 

CTMHAP = Concentration of total metal HAP 

measured during performance test run, 

gr/dscf; 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, 

dscfm; 

Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during 

performance test run, tons; 

ttest = Duration of performance test run, 

minutes; and 

7,000 = Unit conversion factor, gr/lb. 

(d) To determine compliance with the 

opacity limit in § 63.7690(a)(7) for 

fugitive emissions from buildings or 

structures housing any iron and steel 

foundry emissions source at the iron 

and steel foundry, follow the procedures 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULESER07FE08.000</MATH> ER07FE08.001</MATH>
7220 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) * * * The certified observer may 

identify a limited number of openings or 

vents that appear to have the highest 

opacities and perform opacity 

observations on the identified openings 

or vents in lieu of performing 

observations for each opening or vent 

from the building or structure. 

Alternatively, a single opacity 

observation for the entire building or 

structure may be performed, if the 

fugitive release points afford such an 

observation. 

(2) During testing intervals when PM 

performance tests, if applicable, are 

being conducted, conduct the opacity 

test such the opacity observations are 

recorded during the PM performance 

tests. 

(e) * * * 

(3) For a cupola metal melting 

furnace, correct the measured 

concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or 

TOC for oxygen content in the gas 

stream using Equation 3 of this section: 

C C

O Eq. 3) VOHAP, 10%O VOHAP 2 = −





 



 10 9

20 9 2

. %

.% % (

Where: 

CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv 

as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A or the concentration 

of TGNMO or TOC in ppmv as hexane 

as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A; and 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream, 

percent by volume (dry basis). 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC 

emissions limit using Equation 4 of this 

section: 

VOC

C

C Eq. 4) limit

VOHAP, avg

CEM

= × 20 (

Where: 

CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of 

VOHAP for the source test in ppmv as 

measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A or the average 

concentration of TGNMO for the source 

test in ppmv as hexane as measured by 

Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A; and 

CCEM = Average concentration of total 

hydrocarbons in ppmv as hexane as 

measured using the CEMS during the 

source test. 

(3) For two or more exhaust streams 

from one or more automated conveyor 

and pallet cooling lines or automated 

shakeout lines, compute the flowweighted average concentration of 

VOHAP emissions for each combination 

of exhaust streams using Equation 5 of 

this section: 

C =

C Q

Q

W Eq. 5)

i i

i=1

n

i

i=1

n

∑

∑

(

Where: 

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP 

or VOC, ppmv (as hexane); 

Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from 

exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, ppmv (as hexane); 

n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from 

exhaust stream ‘‘i,’’, dscfm. 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) Method 18 to determine the TEA 

concentration. Alternatively, you may 

use NIOSH Method 2010 (incorporated 

by reference—see § 63.14) to determine 

the TEA concentration provided the 

performance requirements outlined in 

section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are 

satisfied. The sampling option and time 

must be sufficiently long such that 

either the TEA concentration in the field 

sample is at least 5 times the limit of 

detection for the analytical method or 

the test results calculated using the 

laboratory’s reported analytical 

detection limit for the specific field 

samples are less than 1⁄5 of the 

applicable emissions limit. When using 

Method 18, the adsorbent tube 

approach, as described in section 8.2.4 

of Method 18, may be required to 

achieve the necessary analytical 

detection limits. The sampling time 

must be at least 1 hour in all cases. 

(2) If you use a wet acid scrubber, 

conduct the test as soon as practicable 

after adding fresh acid solution and the 

system has reached normal operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(4) If you are subject to the 99 percent 

reduction standard, calculate the mass 

emissions reduction using Equation 6 of 

this section: 

% reduction = E E

E Eq. i o

i

− ×100 6 %()

Where: 

Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control 

device inlet, kilograms per hour (kg/hr); 

and 

Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control 

device outlet, kg/hr. 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Calculate the flow-weighted 

average emissions limit, considering 

only the regulated streams, using 

Equation 5 of this section, except Cw is 

the flow-weighted average emissions 

limit for PM or total metal HAP in the 

exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and Ci is the 

concentration of PM or total metal HAP 

in exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, gr/dscf. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or 

total metal HAP concentration of the 

combined exhaust stream both before 

and after the control device and 

calculate the mass removal efficiency of 

the control device using Equation 6 of 

this section, except Ei is the mass 

emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP 

at the control device inlet, lb/hr and Eo

is the mass emissions rate of PM or total 

metal HAP at the control device outlet, 

lb/hr. 

(iii) Meet the applicable emissions 

limit based on the calculated PM or total 

metal HAP concentration for the 

regulated emissions sources using 

Equation 7 of this section: 

C C % reduction

100 Eq. 7) released i =×− 



 



 1 (


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULESER07FE08.002</MATH> ER07FE08.003</MATH> ER07FE08.004</MATH> ER07FE08.005</MATH> ER07FE08.006</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7221 

Where: 

Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or 

total metal HAP) predicted to be released 

to the atmosphere from the regulated 

emissions source, gr/dscf; and 

Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal 

HAP) in the uncontrolled regulated 

exhaust stream, gr/dscf. 

(i) To determine compliance with an 

emissions limit for situations when 

multiple sources are controlled by a 

single control device, but only one 

source operates at a time, or other 

situations that are not expressly 

considered in paragraphs (b) through (h) 

of this section, a site-specific test plan 

should be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval according to 

the requirements in § 63.7(c)(2) and (3). 

■ 9. Section 63.7733 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), and 

(d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7733 What procedures must I use to 

establish operating limits? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Compute and record the average 

pressure drop and average scrubber 

water flow rate for each valid sampling 

run in which the applicable emissions 

limit is met. 

(c) * * * 

(2) Compute and record the average 

combustion zone temperature for each 

valid sampling run in which the 

applicable emissions limit is met. 

(d) * * * 

(2) Compute and record the average 

scrubbing liquid flow rate for each valid 

sampling run in which the applicable 

emissions limit is met. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.7734 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and 

(iv); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) and 

(a)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emissions limitations 

that apply to me? 

(a) You have demonstrated initial 

compliance with the emissions limits in 

§ 63.7690(a) by meeting the applicable 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(11) of this section. When alternative 

emissions limitations are provided for a 

given emissions source, you are not 

restricted in the selection of which 

applicable alternative emissions 

limitation is used to demonstrate 

compliance. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The average total metal HAP 

concentration in the exhaust stream, 

determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/ 

dscf; or 

(iii) The average PM mass emissions 

rate, determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.10 pound 

of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; 

or 

(iv) The average total metal HAP mass 

emissions rate, determined according to 

the performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.008 

pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ 

ton) of metal charged. 

* * * * * 

(7) For each building or structure 

housing any iron and steel foundry 

emissions source at the iron and steel 

foundry, the opacity of fugitive 

emissions from foundry operations 

discharged to the atmosphere, 

determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent 

(6-minute average), except for one 6- 

minute average per hour that did not 

exceed 27 percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(11) For each TEA cold box mold or 

core making line in a new or existing 

iron and steel foundry, the average TEA 

concentration, determined according to 

the performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g), did not exceed 1 ppmv or 

was reduced by 99 percent. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.7736 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the operation and 

maintenance requirements that apply to 

me? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) You have submitted the bag leak 

detection system monitoring 

information to the Administrator within 

the written O&M plan for approval 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.7710(b); 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.7740 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) 

through (g) as (d) through (h); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7740 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) For each negative pressure 

baghouse or positive pressure baghouse 

equipped with a stack that is applied to 

meet any PM or total metal HAP 

emissions limitation in this subpart, you 

must at all times monitor the relative 

change in PM loadings using a bag leak 

detection system according to the 

requirements in § 63.7741(b). 

(c) For each baghouse, regardless of 

type, that is applied to meet any PM or 

total metal HAP emissions limitation in 

this subpart, you must conduct 

inspections at their specified 

frequencies according to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) Monitor the pressure drop across 

each baghouse cell each day to ensure 

pressure drop is within the normal 

operating range identified in the 

manual. 

(2) Confirm that dust is being 

removed from hoppers through weekly 

visual inspections or other means of 

ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(3) Check the compressed air supply 

for pulse-jet baghouses each day. 

(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation using an appropriate 

methodology. 

(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms 

for proper functioning through monthly 

visual inspections or equivalent means. 

(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag 

tension on reverse air and shaker-type 

baghouses to ensure that bags are not 

kinked (kneed or bent) or lying on their 

sides. You do not have to make this 

check for shaker-type baghouses using 

self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices. 

(7) Confirm the physical integrity of 

the baghouse through quarterly visual 

inspections of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks. 

(8) Inspect fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through 

quarterly visual inspections, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.7741 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), 

(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv), and 

(a)(2)(vi); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), 

(c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and (c)(2)(iv); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(8); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7741 What are the installation, 

operation, and maintenance requirements 

for my monitors? 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7222 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) * * * 

(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or 

as close as possible to a position that 

provides a representative measurement 

of the pressure and that minimizes or 

eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Check the pressure tap for 

pluggage daily. If a ‘‘non-clogging’’

pressure tap is used, check for pluggage 

monthly. 

(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent 

device such as a magnahelic or other 

pressure indicating transmitter, check 

gauge and transducer calibration 

quarterly. 

* * * * * 

(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

* * * * * 

(b) For each negative pressure 

baghouse or positive pressure baghouse 

equipped with a stack that is applied to 

meet any PM or total metal HAP 

emissions limitation in this subpart, you 

must install, operate, and maintain a bag 

leak detection system according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (7) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Check the pressure tap for 

pluggage daily. If a ‘‘non-clogging’’

pressure tap is used, check for pluggage 

monthly. 

(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent 

device such as a magnahelic or other 

pressure indicating transmitter, check 

gauge and transducer calibration 

quarterly. 

* * * * * 

(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(2) * * * 

(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(d) * * * 

(8) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.7743 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a second sentence to the 

end of paragraph (a) introductory text 

and removing the colon after the first 

sentence in paragraph (a) in text and 

adding period in its place; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and 

adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7743 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emissions 

limitations that apply to me? 

(a) * * * When alternative emissions 

limitations are provided for a given 

emissions source, you must comply 

with the alternative emissions limitation 

most recently selected as your 

compliance alternative. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Maintaining the average total 

metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 

stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf; or 

(iii) Maintaining the average PM mass 

emissions rate at or below 0.10 pound 

of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; 

or 

(iv) Maintaining the average total 

metal HAP mass emissions rate at or 

below 0.008 pound of total metal HAP 

per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged. 

* * * * * 

(7) For each building or structure 

housing any iron and steel foundry 

emissions source at the iron and steel 

foundry, maintaining the opacity of any 

fugitive emissions from foundry 

operations discharged to the atmosphere 

at or below 20 percent opacity (6-minute 

average), except for one 6-minute 

average per hour that does not exceed 

27 percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(c) For each baghouse, 

(1) Inspecting and maintaining each 

baghouse according to the requirements 

of § 63.7740(c)(1) through (8) and 

recording all information needed to 

document conformance with these 

requirements; and 

(2) If the baghouse is equipped with 

a bag leak detection system, maintaining 

records of the times the bag leak 

detection system sounded, and for each 

valid alarm, the time you initiated 

corrective action, the corrective action 

taken, and the date on which corrective 

action was completed. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.7750 is amended by 

adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7750 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * For opacity performance 

tests, the notification of compliance 

status may be submitted with the 

semiannual compliance report in 

§ 63.7751(a) and (b) or the semiannual 

part 70 monitoring report in 

§ 63.7551(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.7751 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7751 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction report. If you had a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction during the 

semiannual reporting period that was 

not consistent with your startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan and 

the source exceeds any applicable 

emissions limitation in § 63.7690, you 

must submit an immediate startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction report 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 63.7752 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7752 What records must I keep? 

(a) * * * 

(4) Records of the annual quantity of 

each chemical binder or coating 

material used to coat or make molds and 

cores, the Material Data Safety Sheet or 

other documentation that provides the 

chemical composition of each 

component, and the annual quantity of 

HAP used in these chemical binder or 

coating materials at the foundry as 

calculated from the recorded quantities 

and chemical compositions (from 

Material Data Safety Sheets or other 

documentation). 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 63.7765 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Deviation’’; 

■ b. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Offblast’’ and ‘‘On 

blast’’; and 

■ c. Revising the definitions ‘‘Scrap 

preheater’’ and adding ‘‘Total metal 

HAP’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.7765 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source or an owner or 

operator of such an affected source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7223 

including, but not limited to, any 

emissions limitation (including 

operating limits), work practice 

standard, or operation and maintenance 

requirement; 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any iron and steel foundry 

required to obtain such a permit; or 

(3) Fails to meet any emissions 

limitation (including operating limits) 

or work practice standard in this 

subpart during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, regardless of whether or 

not such failure is permitted by this 

subpart. 

A deviation is not always a violation. 

The determination of whether a 

deviation constitutes a violation of the 

standard is up to the discretion of the 

entity responsible for enforcement of the 

standards. 

* * * * * 

Off blast means those periods of 

cupola operation when the cupola is not 

actively being used to produce molten 

metal. Off blast conditions include 

cupola startup when air is introduced to 

the cupola to preheat the sand bed and 

other cupola startup procedures as 

defined in the startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. Off blast conditions 

also include idling conditions when the 

blast air is turned off or down to the 

point that the cupola does not produce 

additional molten metal. 

On blast means those periods of 

cupola operation when combustion 

(blast) air is introduced to the cupola 

furnace and the furnace is capable of 

producing molten metal. On blast 

conditions are characterized by both 

blast air introduction and molten metal 

production. 

Scrap preheater means a vessel or 

other piece of equipment in which 

metal scrap that is to be used as melting 

furnace feed is heated to a temperature 

high enough to eliminate volatile 

impurities or other tramp materials by 

direct flame heating or similar means of 

heating. Scrap dryers, which solely 

remove moisture from metal scrap, are 

not considered to be scrap preheaters for 

purposes of this subpart. 

Total metal HAP means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 

concentrations of antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium as measured by EPA Method 

29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only 

the measured concentration of the listed 

analytes that are present at 

concentrations exceeding one-half the 

quantitation limit of the analytical 

method are to be used in the sum. If any 

of the analytes are not detected or are 

detected at concentrations less than onehalf the quantitation limit of the 

analytical method, the concentration of 

those analytes will be assumed to be 

zero for the purposes of calculating the 

total metal HAP for this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is 

amended by revising the entry for § 63.9 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART EEEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEEE 

* * * * * * * 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart EEEEE? Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

63.9 .................................... Notification requirements ... Yes ..................................... Except: for opacity performance tests, Subpart EEEEE 

allows the notification of compliance status to be 

submitted with the semiannual compliance report or 

the semiannual part 70 monitoring report. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–1979 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 001005281–0369–02] 

RIN 0648–XF24 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 

Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial 

run-around gillnet fishery for king 

mackerel in the exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ) in the southern Florida west 

coast subzone. This closure is necessary 

to protect the Gulf king mackerel 

resource. 

DATES: The closure is effective 6 a.m., 

local time, February 5, 2008, through 6 

a.m., January 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824–

5305, fax: 727–824–5308, e-mail: 

Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish 

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, 

cobia, little tunny, and, in the Gulf of 

Mexico only, dolphin and bluefish) is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils) and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

Based on the Councils’ recommended 

total allowable catch and the allocation 

ratios in the FMP, on April 30, 2001 (66 

FR 17368, March 30, 2001), NMFS 

implemented a commercial quota of 

2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg) for the 

eastern zone (Florida) of the Gulf 

migratory group of king mackerel. That 

quota is further divided into separate 

quotas for the Florida east coast subzone 

and the northern and southern Florida 

west coast subzones. On April 27, 2000, 

NMFS implemented the final rule (65 

FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided 

the Florida west coast subzone of the 

eastern zone into northern and southern 

subzones, and established their separate 

quotas. The quota implemented for the 

southern Florida west coast subzone is 

1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg). That quota is 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES