Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359-0057
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
Posted Date: 2008-01-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 225-265]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-15]                         

[[Page 225]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and 
Steel Foundries Area Sources; Final Rule

[[Page 226]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-8509-6]
RIN 2060-AM36

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron 
and Steel Foundries Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel 
foundries). The requirements for the two area source categories are 
combined in one subpart. The final rule establishes different 
requirements for foundries based on size. Small area source foundries 
are required to comply with pollution prevention management practices 
for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and binder 
formulations. Large area source foundries are required to comply with 
the same pollution prevention management practices as small foundries 
in addition to emissions standards for melting furnaces and foundry 
operations. The final standards reflect the generally achievable 
control technology and/or management practices for each subcategory.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 2, 2008. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 
2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov
 index. 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, will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources 
Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information Center, 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. Conrad Chin, 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) 541-1512; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: chin.conrad@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information 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
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
    A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
    B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution 
prevention management practices?
    C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?
    D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    B. Pollution Prevention Management Practices
    C. Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
    D. Implementation and Enforcement
    E. Definitions
    F. Impact Estimates
    G. Miscellaneous
V. Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/
NO][DATE]*[/DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/
SUBJECT][/PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED][EXTRACT][P]*[/P]
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this 
final action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          331511  Iron foundries. Iron
                                                  and steel plants.
                                                  Automotive and large
                                                  equipment
                                                  manufacturers.
                                         331512  Steel investment
                                                  foundries.
                                         331513  Steel foundries (except
                                                  investment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 
63.10880 of subpart ZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources). 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 EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 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.

[[Page 227]]

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 
3, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to 
this final rule 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 this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for us to convene a 
proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection 
can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such 
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for 
such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within 
the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of 
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to 
make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for 
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the person listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the 
Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.

II. Background Information

    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of 
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban 
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest 
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to 
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) 
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area 
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the 
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the 
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP 
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club 
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source 
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) 
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v. 
Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an 
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 
112(c)(3). Among other things, the court order, as amended on October 
15, 2007, requires that EPA complete standards for nine area source 
categories by December 15, 2007. We are issuing this final rule in 
response to the court order. Other final NESHAP will complete the 
required regulatory action for the remaining area source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source 
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list 
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of 
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under 
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for 
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control 
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the preamble 
to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing emission standards based on GACT 
for the control of the Urban HAP for which the source category was 
listed (compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) that are 
emitted from metal melting furnaces at area source facilities 
classified as large iron and steel foundries.
    In addition, we are establishing pollution prevention management 
practices based on GACT that apply to all area source foundries. The 
pollution prevention management practices reduce HAP emissions of 
organics, metals, and mercury generated from furnace charge materials 
and prohibit the use of methanol as a component of binder formulations 
in certain applications. Another pollution prevention management 
practice requires that foundries keep a record of the annual quantity 
and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder or coating 
material used to make molds and cores. These records may assist area 
source foundry owners or operators in their pursuit of pollution 
prevention opportunities.

III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

    The final NESHAP applies to each new and existing iron and steel 
foundry that is an area source of HAP. The final rule allows 2 years 
(instead of 1 year as proposed) for existing foundries to comply with 
the pollution prevention standards for mercury. As proposed, all 
foundries must comply with the pollution prevention management 
practices for scrap management and binder formulations by January 2, 
2009. A large existing foundry must comply with applicable emissions 
limitations and operation and maintenance requirements no later than 2 
years after initial classification.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ If additional time is needed to install controls, the owner 
or operator of an existing source can, pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.6(i)(4), request from the permitting authority up to a 1-year 
extension of the compliance date. See CAA section 112(i)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, different rule requirements apply to facilities 
classified as large foundries or small foundries. Based on public 
comment, we have revised the threshold level in the definitions of 
large foundry'' and ``small foundry'' as they apply to existing 
affected sources. For an existing affected source, we are defining a 
``small foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal 
melt production of 20,000 tons or less (instead of 10,000 tons). An 
existing affected source that has an annual metal melt production 
greater than 20,000 tons is classified as a large foundry. For new 
affected sources, we have revised the basis for determining the 
threshold. For a new affected source, we are defining a ``small 
foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt 
capacity of 10,000 tons or less. A new affected source that has an 
annual metal melt capacity greater than 10,000 tons is classified as a 
large foundry. The term, ``annual metal melt capacity'' is defined in 
the final rule as:

* * * the lower of the total metal melting furnace equipment melt 
rate capacity assuming 8,760 operating hours per year summed for all 
metal melting furnaces at the foundry or, if applicable, the maximum 
permitted metal melt production rate for the iron and steel foundry 
calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise specified in the 
permit, permitted metal melt production rates that are not specified 
on an annual basis must be annualized assuming 24 hours per day, 365 
days per year of operation. If the permit limits the operating hours 
of the

[[Page 228]]

furnace(s) or foundry, then the permitted operating hours are used 
to annualize the maximum permitted metal melt production rate.

    Each existing foundry must determine its initial classification as 
a small or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008. 
After the initial classification, an existing affected source 
classified as a small foundry that exceeds the 20,000 ton annual metal 
melt production threshold during the preceding calendar year must 
comply with the applicable requirements for a large foundry within 2 
years of the date of the foundry's notification that the annual metal 
melt production exceeded 20,000 tons (provided the facility has never 
been classified as a large foundry). For example, if an existing small 
foundry produces more than 20,000 tons of melted metal from January 1 
through December 31, 2009, that facility is required to comply with the 
requirements for a large foundry by January 2012. If the small foundry 
has previously been classified as a large foundry, the facility must 
comply with the requirements for a large foundry immediately (no later 
than the date of the foundry's most recent notification that the annual 
melt production exceeded 20,000 tons). If an existing facility is 
initially classified as a large foundry (or a small foundry becomes a 
large foundry), that facility must meet the applicable requirements for 
a large foundry for at least 3 years, even if its annual metal melt 
production falls below 20,000 tons. After 3 years, the foundry may 
reclassify the facility as a small foundry provided the annual metal 
melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 tons or 
less. A large foundry that is reclassified as a small foundry must 
continue to comply with the applicable requirements for small foundries 
immediately (no later than the date the foundry notifies the 
Administrator of the reclassification). A large foundry that is 
reclassified as a small foundry and then exceeds an annual metal melt 
production of 20,000 tons for a subsequent calendar year, must comply 
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately (no 
later than the date the foundry notifies the Administrator of the 
reclassification).
    The owner or operator of a new area source foundry must comply with 
the rule requirements by January 2, 2008 or upon startup, whichever is 
later. Each new foundry must determine its initial classification as a 
small or large foundry based on its annual metal melting capacity at 
startup. Following the initial determination, a small foundry that 
increases their annual metal melting capacity to greater than 10,000 
tons must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no later 
than the startup date for the new equipment or if applicable, the date 
of issuance for their revised State or Federal operating permit. If the 
new foundry is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small 
foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), the owner or operator 
must comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 
years before reclassifying the facility as a small foundry. After 3 
years, the owner or operator may reclassify the facility as a small 
foundry provided the annual metal melting capacity is 10,000 tons or 
less. If a large foundry is reclassified as a small foundry, the owner 
or operator must comply with the requirements for a small foundry no 
later than the date the melting equipment was removed or taken out of 
service or if applicable, the date of issuance for their revised State 
or Federal operating permit.

B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution prevention 
management practices?

1. Metallic Scrap
    The material specification requirements are based on pollution 
prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials from 
metallic scrap before melting. All foundries must prepare and operate 
according to written material specifications for one of two equivalent 
compliance options.
    One compliance option requires foundries to prepare and operate 
pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase and use of 
only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do not 
include metallic scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil 
filters, oily turnings, lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free 
liquids. The term ``free liquids'' is defined as material that fails 
the paint filter test by EPA Method 9095B (incorporated by reference--
see 40 CFR 63.14) in EPA Publication SW-846, ``Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods''. A new provision 
states that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the 
owner or operator can demonstrate that the free liquid results from 
scrap exposed to rain.
    The second compliance option requires foundries to prepare and 
operate pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase 
and use of scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of 
organics and HAP metals in the charge materials used by the foundry. 
Except for a cupola equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap 
charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace must be depleted 
(to the extent practicable) of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic 
parts, accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids. For 
scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is equipped with 
an afterburner, the material specifications must include requirements 
for metal scrap to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of 
chlorinated plastics, accessible lead-containing components, and free 
liquids. In response to comments, we deleted a provision in the 
proposed rule that would have exempted the routine recycling of 
baghouse bags or other internal process or maintenance materials in the 
furnace.
    Either material specification option will achieve a similar HAP 
reduction impact. Foundries may have certain scrap subject to one 
option and other scrap subject to another option provided the metallic 
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
2. Mercury Switch Removal
    The final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention 
and require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from motor 
vehicles either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle 
scrap only from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved 
program for the removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the 
alternative requirements described below. The final rule clarifies that 
the requirements do not apply to scrap providers who do not provide 
motor vehicle scrap or to contracts and shipments that do not include 
motor vehicle scrap. Foundries participating in an approved program 
must maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting 
the scrap provider's participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch 
removal program. An equivalent compliance option is for the foundry to 
prepare and operate pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan that 
includes specifications to the scrap provider that mercury switches 
must be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an efficiency comparable 
to that of the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program (see below). 
An equivalent compliance option is provided for facilities that recover 
only specialty scrap that does not contain mercury switches. Provisions 
are also included for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
    We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose 
to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers 
who participate in a program for removal of

[[Page 229]]

mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator. The 
NVMSRP \4\ is an approved program under this final standard as is the 
mercury switch recovery program implemented by the State of Maine. 
Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a compliance option must 
assume all of the responsibilities as described in the MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For details see: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm. In 

particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foundries may also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating 
in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or operator must submit 
a request to the Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing 
scrap from scrap providers that are participating in another switch 
removal program and demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction 
that the program meets the following specified criteria: (1) There is 
an outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for 
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on 
switch removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least 
80 percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must 
submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and 
the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a 
percentage of switches removed is easily derivable).
    Facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers 
that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal 
program must prepare and operate pursuant to and in conformance with a 
site-specific plan for the removal of mercury switches, and the plan 
must include provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers 
that mercury switches have been removed. The plan must be submitted to 
the Administrator for approval and demonstrate how the facility will 
comply with specific requirements that include: (1) A means of 
communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to 
obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have 
been removed and the need to ensure the proper disposal of the mercury 
switches, (2) provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers 
that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap 
specifications, (3) provisions for periodic inspection, or other means 
of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are 
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury 
switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4) provisions for taking corrective 
actions if needed, and (5) requiring each motor vehicle scrap provider 
to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from 
motor vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and 
the basis for the estimate. The Administrator may request documentation 
or additional information from the owner or operator at any time. The 
site-specific plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80 
percent of the mercury switches. All documented and verifiable mercury-
containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap count towards 
the 80 percent goal.
    In response to comments, we have revised the final rule to include 
provisions designed to increase the effectiveness and enforceability of 
the EPA-approved programs. The requirements for a site-specific plan 
specify that the owner or operator must operate according to the plan 
during the review process, operate according to the plan at all times 
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the 
Administrator or delegated authority within 60 days following 
disapproval of a plan. The owner or operator may request approval to 
revise the plan and may operate according to the revised plan unless 
and until the revision is disapproved by the Administrator or delegated 
authority. A new provision also requires the site-specific plan to 
include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate 
to suppliers throughout the supply chain the need to promote the 
removal of mercury switches from end of life vehicles. The owner or 
operator must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach 
to suppliers at the request of the Administrator or delegated 
authority. We have also clarified that the information in the 
semiannual progress reports for each scrap provider can be submitted in 
aggregated form and does not have to be submitted for each shipment. We 
have also revised the option for approved mercury programs to require 
that foundries develop and maintain onsite a written plan demonstrating 
the manner through which the facility is participating in the EPA-
approved program. The plan must include facility-specific 
implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts 
coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for each facility. 
The plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff 
to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need 
to promote the removal or mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. 
The owner or operator also must conduct periodic inspections or provide 
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware 
of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the 
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
    An equivalent compliance option is provided for foundries that 
recover specialty metals. The option requires the facility to certify 
that the only materials they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are 
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content, such as chromium 
in certain exhaust systems, and these materials are known not to 
contain mercury switches. We have added to the final rule certification 
requirements for facilities that do not use motor vehicle scrap 
containing mercury switches.
    Records are required to document conformance with the material 
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury 
switches. Each foundry is required to submit semiannual reports that 
clearly identify any deviation from the scrap management requirements. 
These reports can be submitted as part of the semiannual reports 
required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions.
3. Binder Formulations
    For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line, new 
and existing foundries must use a binder chemical formulation that does 
not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst formulation. 
This requirement does not apply to the resin portion of the binder 
system. This final rule includes recordkeeping requirements to document 
conformance with this requirement.

C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?

    This final rule requires each new and existing affected source that 
is classified as a small foundry to comply with the pollution 
prevention management practices for metallic scrap, mercury switches, 
and binder formulations described above. The owner or operator is 
required to submit an initial notification of applicability no later 
than May 1, 2008 (or within 120 days after the foundry becomes subject 
to the standard; see 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)). The foundry is also required 
to submit an initial written notification to the Administrator that 
identifies their facility as a small (or large) foundry; this 
notification is due no later than January 2, 2009. Subsequent 
notifications are required within 30 days for a change in

[[Page 230]]

process or operations that reclassifies the status of the facility and 
its compliance obligations. A small foundry is also required to submit 
a notification of compliance status according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The 
notification of compliance status must include certifications of 
compliance for the pollution prevention management practices. This 
final rule also requires small foundries to keep records of monthly 
metal melt production and report any deviation from the pollution 
prevention management practices in the semiannual report required by 40 
CFR 63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions.
    We are also requiring small foundries to keep a record of the 
annual quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder 
or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records must be 
copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other 
documentation that provide information on binder materials. The purpose 
of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and use 
nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.

D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?

    This final NESHAP requires new and existing affected sources that 
are classified as large foundries to comply with the pollution 
prevention management practices described in section III.B of this 
preamble. In addition, large foundries are required to operate capture 
and collection systems for metal melting furnaces and comply with 
emissions standards, operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing, 
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. Emissions Limitations
    New and existing affected sources that are classified as large 
foundries must comply with emissions limits for metal melting furnaces. 
A metal melting furnace includes cupolas, EAF, EIF, or other similar 
devices (excluding holding furnaces, argon oxygen decarburization 
vessels, or ladles that receive molten metal from a metal melting 
furnace, to which metal ingots or other materials may be added to 
adjust the metal chemistry). The final emissions limits for metal 
melting furnaces are:
     0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds 
of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting 
furnace at an existing iron and steel foundry.
     0.1 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pounds 
of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting 
furnace at a new iron and steel foundry.
    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source may 
choose to comply with these emission limits utilizing emissions 
averaging as specified in this rule so that the production-weighted 
average emissions from all metal melting furnaces at the foundry for 
any calendar month meet the applicable emissions limit.
    The proposed rule included operating parameter limits that applied 
to PM control devices applied to emissions from a metal melting 
furnace. We eliminated the operating limit for baghouse pressure drop 
in response to comments because this operating parameter was determined 
not to be an appropriate indicator of performance. We have revised the 
other operating limits to apply to PM control devices at new affected 
sources instead of existing affected sources to minimize costs to 
existing sources associated with monitoring system retrofits. For a wet 
scrubber, a foundry must maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test. For an electrostatic 
precipitator, a foundry must maintain the voltage and secondary current 
(or total power input) to the control device at or above the level 
established during the initial or subsequent performance test. The 
final rule does not include an operating limit for baghouses at 
existing or new affected sources. The final NESHAP also includes a 
fugitive emissions opacity limit of 20 percent for each building or 
structure housing iron and steel foundry operations revised since 
proposal to allow one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 30 
percent. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive emissions opacity 
limit include all process equipment and practices used to produce metal 
castings for shipment including mold or core making and coating; scrap 
handling and preheating; metal melting and inoculation; pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding and other metal finishing 
operations; and sand handling.
2. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    The owner or operator is required to prepare and operate by an O&M 
plan for each control device used to comply with the standards. Any 
other O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar plan which satisfies 
the specified requirements may be used to comply with the requirements 
for an O&M plan.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring 
requirements in several respects. The monitoring requirements in the 
final rule apply to new and existing affected sources that are 
classified as large foundries (those having an annual metal melt 
production greater than 20,000 tons instead of 10,000 tons in the 
proposed rule). We are requiring that large foundries at new and 
existing affected sources conduct initial and periodic inspections of 
PM control devices (baghouses, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic 
precipitators) in lieu of the proposed monitoring requirements. As an 
alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an existing 
area source may use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit 
instead of complying with the inspection requirements for baghouses.
    We are requiring that large iron and steel foundries at new 
affected sources install and operate CPMS to measure and record 
operating parameters of wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators 
used to comply with PM or total metal HAP emissions limit. All CPMS 
must be operated and maintained according to the O&M plan. These 
foundries are also subject to control device operating limits that are 
the same as the proposed operating limits for wet scrubbers and 
electrostatic precipitators. No operating limits apply to baghouses at 
existing or new affected sources.
    Bag leak detection systems are required for positive or negative 
pressure baghouses at a new area source foundry. If a bag leak 
detection system is used, the owner or operator must prepare and 
operate pursuant to a monitoring plan for each bag leak detection 
system; specific requirements for the plan are included in this final 
rule. For additional information on bag leak detection systems that 
operate on the triboelectric effect, see ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak 
Detection Guidance'', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication number 
PB98164676. This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the 
performance of the capture system are also required. The owner or 
operator must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture

[[Page 231]]

system as soon as practicable but no later than 90 days and record the 
results of each inspection and the date of any repair.
    If a large foundry complies with the emissions limits for furnaces 
using emissions averaging, the final NESHAP requires the owner or 
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. The facility 
must determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting 
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this final rule. 
We have reduced the default emissions factor for uncontrolled induction 
furnaces in an emissions averaging group from 3 pounds of PM per ton of 
metal charged (lb/ton) to 1.6 lb/ton. The owner or operator must 
maintain records of the monthly calculations and report any exceedance 
in the semiannual report.
4. Performance Tests
    We are requiring that each large foundry conduct a performance test 
to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM or total metal HAP 
emissions limit and the opacity limit for fugitive emissions within 180 
days of the applicable compliance date and submit the results in the 
notification of compliance status. In lieu of conducting an initial 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or 
total metal HAP limit for metal melting furnaces, the owner or operator 
of an existing foundry is allowed to submit the results of a previous 
performance test provided the test was conducted within the last 5 
years using the methods and procedures specified in the rule and either 
no process changes have been made since the test, or the test results 
reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit 
despite process changes. If the owner or operator does not have a 
previous performance test that meets the rule requirements, a test must 
be conducted within 180 days of the compliance date. Special provisions 
also are included for testing electric induction furnaces (EIFs) at 
existing foundries. Performance tests are required for all new area 
source foundries. Subsequent tests for furnaces are required every 5 
years and each time an operating limit is changed or a process change 
occurs that is likely to increase metal HAP emissions from the furnace. 
Provisions are included in this final rule for determining compliance 
with PM or total metal HAP emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal 
charged format and for establishing control device operating parameter 
limits. This final rule also includes requirements to perform opacity 
testing by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) every 6 months. This 
final rule describes the methods and requirements for these semiannual 
opacity observations. In response to comments, we have revised the 
proposed rule to allow an alternative to the Method 9 test. The 
alternative allows the owner or operator to conduct semiannual VE 
observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7). If visible 
fugitive emissions from foundry operations occur for more than 10 
percent of the Method 22 observation period (i.e., more than a 
cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-hour period), the owner or operator must 
conduct a Method 9 test of the fugitive emissions from foundry 
operations as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the 
Method 22 test to determine compliance with the opacity limit.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    The owner or operator is required to submit an initial notification 
that identifies the facility as a large (or small) foundry. In 
addition, the owner or operator is required to comply with certain 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which are identified in Table 3 of this final rule. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e). In 
addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, all foundries are 
required to maintain records to document conformance with the pollution 
prevention management practice emissions standards for metallic scrap, 
mercury switch removal, and binder formulations as well as to maintain 
records of annual melt production and corrective action(s). Large 
foundries must also prepare and operate according to the O&M plan and 
record monthly compliance calculations for metal melting furnaces that 
comply using emissions averaging, if applicable. The owner or operator 
must submit semiannual reports that provide summary information on 
excursions or exceedances (including the corrective action taken), 
monitor downtime incidents, and deviations from management practices or 
O&M requirements according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.10.
    We are also requiring all foundries to keep a record of the annual 
quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder or 
coating material used to make molds and cores. These records must be 
copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other 
documentation that provide information on binder materials. The primary 
purpose of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate 
and use nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.
6. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we 
are exempting iron foundries and steel foundries area source categories 
from title V permitting requirements. Although the final rule exempts 
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to 
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already 
have a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this 
rule through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of 37 comments on the proposed area source 
NESHAP from 31 companies, trade associations, and anonymous members of 
the public and from 6 States and State associations during the public 
comment period (September 17, 2007 to November 1, 2007). A public 
hearing was held on October 2, 2007, where we received testimony from 
two industry representatives. Sections IV.A through IV.G of this 
preamble provide responses to the public comments received on the 
proposed NESHAP, including our rationale for changes made as a result 
of the comments.

A. Applicability and Compliance Dates

    Comment: Nine commenters stated that EPA should consider a higher 
plant size threshold of 15,000 tons per year (tpy) of melted metal 
because of the significant economic burden associated with the proposed 
rule. In addition, one commenter said the industry subcategorization 
threshold should be ``significantly above'' 15,000 tpy. Another 
commenter stated that it would be difficult to justify the proposed 
rule for foundries with a production of 30,000 tpy, and that it is not 
cost-effective to require controls on foundries with a melt production 
less than 15,000 tpy. One commenter recommended a threshold of 20,000 
tpy and two commenters said that the threshold should be 
``significantly above'' 30,000 tpy. One commenter opposed the rule as 
proposed and recommended that EPA reconsider the proposed size 
threshold of 10,000 tpy.

[[Page 232]]

    One commenter supported the co-proposal which would implement only 
the pollution prevention management practices. The commenter stated 
that foundries are adequately regulated by existing Federal, State, and 
local regulations and the proposed rule would impose significant burden 
without significant environmental improvement.
    Response: Based on our consideration of comments, including the 
combined effect of the emission and cost impacts on both the nationwide 
cost-effectiveness and the economic impacts of the rule, we concluded 
that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for new and 
existing affected sources that are classified as large foundries may 
not be appropriate. Based on the revised impact analysis, we determined 
that the most appropriate size threshold for existing affected sources 
classified as large foundries is 20,000 tpy. However, we found no basis 
for increasing the size threshold for new affected sources. New 
affected sources do not have the same retrofit issues as existing 
affected sources. Moreover, there are existing affected sources with 
metal melt production of 10,000 tpy that operate controls. Therefore, 
we have retained the 10,000 tpy threshold at which a new affected 
source is classified as a large foundry.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the rule 
does not apply to foundries that produce nonferrous metals where 
nonferrous metal means ``any pure metal other than iron or any metal 
alloy for which a metal other than iron is its major constituent by 
percent in weight.''
    Response: We agree. The types of facilities identified by the 
commenter are covered under other source categories depending on the 
type of metal produced (e.g., secondary nonferrous metals, secondary 
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.). In response to this comment, we have 
added a definition of ``nonferrous metal'' to the final rule and 
revised the definition of ``iron and steel foundry'' to clarify that 
nonferrous metal in scrap, metal melting furnaces, and foundry 
operations is not covered by the rule.
    Comment: Twelve commenters requested 3 years to comply with the 
mercury switch removal program to allow for the program to develop 
based on participation by the larger steel producers. Another commenter 
requested 5 years to comply with the mercury switch removal program.
    Response: We agree that the typical area source foundry does not 
have the financial resources and market force over its scrap providers 
when compared with the much larger mini-mills. The area source 
foundries purchase only a small fraction of the national supply of 
scrap from end-of-life vehicles; the vast majority is used in 
steelmaking. Over time, we expect many more dismantlers will join the 
National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP), and even the 
smaller scrap providers will find it to their advantage to participate. 
We believe that an appropriate solution to the difficulties identified 
by the commenters is to allow more time for these area source foundries 
to comply with the mercury requirements. Consequently, we are revising 
the rule to allow additional time (up to 2 years) to comply with the 
pollution prevention requirements for mercury.

B. Pollution Prevention Management Practices

1. Requirements for Metallic Scrap
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the phrase ``to the extent 
practicable'' makes the requirements in the scrap specifications 
unenforceable. The commenters recommended that EPA either define the 
term or establish concrete criteria. One of the commenters recommended 
that for scrap containing free liquid, EPA should define ``to the 
extent practicable'' as scrap failing the paint filter test, similar to 
Sec.  63.10885(a)(1). Another of the commenters asks what ``to the 
extent practicable'' means and recommends that the phrase ``according 
to standard industry practice'' be used instead; this would make the 
foundry and electric arc furnace (EAF) rules more consistent.
    Response: The commenters are referring to the term, ``to the extent 
practicable'' as used in Sec.  63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed rule. We 
used this term to demonstrate our understanding that furnace charge 
materials can not be depleted of 100 percent of the organics and HAP 
metals or the presence of used oiled filters, chlorinated plastic 
parts, accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids. We do 
not see the need to codify a definition of ``practicable'' but note 
here that our intent is that something is practicable if it is capable 
of being put into practice and is feasible. However, we believe that 
the term ``standard industry practice'' does not have a significantly 
clearer meaning, and in fact may not result in as much removal. We are 
replacing the term in the final EAF rule with the term ``to the extent 
practicable'' as it relates to the removal of lead-containing 
components such as batteries and wheel weights. Therefore, we decided 
not to revise the proposed rule for foundries to replace ``to the 
extent practicable'' with ``standard industry practice.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements for metallic 
scrap management in the proposed rule should be the same as for the EAF 
rule in that the pollution prevention plan should have Administrator 
approval and should require compliance inspections and corrective 
action.
    Response: The requirements for scrap management under the proposed 
foundries rule differ from the requirements for scrap management under 
the proposed EAF rule because we determined that GACT for the iron 
foundries and steel foundries area source categories is represented by 
written material specifications. The proposed area source rule for 
foundries requires that the facility operate by written specifications 
for the purchase and use of specified material or of only scrap that 
has been depleted of organics and HAP metals. These written 
specifications must be kept onsite and be readily available; 
consequently, they can be reviewed at any time by EPA or the delegated 
agency for completeness and for compliance with the rule's 
requirements. The owner or operator must maintain records demonstrating 
compliance with these requirements and must submit a certification of 
compliance to that effect. We continue to believe that these written 
material specifications represent GACT for iron and steel foundries, 
and the additional requirements recommended by the commenter are not 
warranted and would be unnecessarily burdensome for the large 
population of small area source foundries.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule must be 
revised to require the facility's owner or operator to ensure the 
``baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials'' 
that are charged in the foundry do not contain organics, HAP metals, 
chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The commenter explained 
that under Sec.  63.10885(a)(1), if an inspector found organics, HAP 
metals, chlorinated plastics or free organic liquids in charge 
materials, the inspector would need to demonstrate that these wastes do 
not stem from ``internal process materials or maintenance materials.'' 
The commenter stated that this type of loophole will make enforcement 
difficult.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the provision exempting 
baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials 
from scrap management requirements is not needed in this rule

[[Page 233]]

and have deleted the provision from the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the limitations 
for scrap managed using a scrap preheater equipped with an afterburner.
    Response: We have revised the proposed rule to clarify that the 
limitations for metallic scrap are the same for all scrap preheaters 
and metal melting furnaces whether or not the preheater or furnace 
(except for a cupola) is equipped with an afterburner. A different set 
of limitations for metallic scrap applies only to cupolas with 
afterburners.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is virtually impossible to 
ensure no free liquids on scrap received when it rains during the 
transport of the scrap. The commenter stated that the impact of this 
requirement has been underestimated.
    Response: Our intent in prohibiting free liquids was to minimize 
the presence of organic liquids. We have clarified in the final rule 
that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the owner or 
operator can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted 
from scrap exposure to rain.
2. Requirements for Mercury Switch Removal
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA establish mercury 
emission performance standards to supplement the scrap management 
program. The commenter recommended that EPA adopt emissions limits 
(effective in 2010) from the New Jersey standards which require a 
mercury limit of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or a 
reduction of least 75 percent at the exit of the mercury control 
system. The commenter stated that the rule allows facilities time to 
reduce emissions by removing sources of mercury from the scrap they 
process but requires additional control if the source separation 
programs are not sufficient to meet the emissions limit. The commenter 
said that one New Jersey foundry had already installed an activated 
carbon injection system for mercury control and a baghouse for the 
cupola; mercury emission test results show mercury reductions greater 
than 90 percent. The commenter argued that such an emissions limit is 
needed to determine the success of the source separation program and 
the need for add-on controls for melters.
    Three commenters recommended that the final rule include testing 
and monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the mercury switch source 
reduction program. Two commenters stated that the final rule should 
require facilities to test emissions within 6 months of the final rule 
to establish a baseline for each facility. One of these commenters also 
stated that percent reduction targets and timelines be included in the 
final rule along with a sampling program. The third commenter requested 
that the final rule include performance or stack testing (inlet/outlet) 
and baghouse hopper dust analysis to confirm and demonstrate reduced 
mercury inputs and emissions. This commenter stated that baghouse 
hopper dust testing is used in some States and EPA should evaluate 
State requirements to develop national minimum requirements.
    Two of the commenters stated that there are monitoring technologies 
that are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry. The 
commenters noted that batch process emissions are tested and monitored 
in many industrial sectors, and EPA has established emission standards 
for many batch processes without requiring the use of continuous 
monitors, including Pesticide Active Ingredient Manufacturing and 
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. The commenters also said 
that EPA has recently promulgated the ``sorbent tube'' method for 
sampling stack gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75, 
appendix K). The commenters explained that because this method of 
monitoring mercury is capable of sampling flue gases over any period of 
time (hours or even days), there appears to be little impediment to 
using this method to sample ``batch'' processes like those at 
foundries. There are also several statistical sampling techniques that 
account for the variability of emissions.
    Response: We understand from the commenter that there is one major 
source foundry with a cupola that has installed emission controls for 
mercury. However, we are not aware that any of the more than 400 area 
source iron and steel foundries for which we have emission control 
information have installed mercury emission controls, and consequently, 
we do not believe that such controls represent GACT for area sources. 
On the other hand, pollution prevention practices have been used to 
reduce mercury emissions at foundries and similar sources, such as EAF 
steelmaking facilities, and these practices have been demonstrated to 
be successful at reducing mercury emissions. We determined that the 
pollution prevention requirements for mercury were economically and 
technologically feasible and concluded they represent GACT for iron and 
steel foundries that are area sources.
    As part of the GACT determination, we concluded that it was not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for mercury because 
mercury emissions are highly variable, and we have insufficient 
information to determine an emission limit that might be achieved on a 
continuing basis. On the other hand, the pollution prevention approach 
quantifies the reduction in mercury release to the environment by 
requiring that the amount of mercury recovered from end-of-life 
vehicles be reported. This type of recordkeeping and reporting is an 
important monitoring component of the rule and provides assurance that 
the requirements are achieving mercury reductions. The monitoring for 
mercury recommended by the commenters is not appropriate because it is 
not related to the rule requirements and provides no information 
related to enforcing the rule. We have chosen monitoring requirements 
that are applicable to the pollution prevention requirements in the 
rule.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the final rule include 
enforceable measures of accountability to ensure the effectiveness of 
the collection programs. The commenters stated that these measures 
should include written documentation and audits of the participation of 
suppliers and evaluation of switch recovery rates. One commenter 
recommended a provision for expectations that a certain percentage of 
switches will be collected from the vehicles and another commenter 
recommended quantifiable measures such as the fraction of switches 
collected from the vehicles. Both commenters stated that the final rule 
should include consequences if the programs do not meet their goals.
    One commenter was concerned about using an estimate of the 
percentage of mercury switches removed to determine whether an approved 
plan should continue to be approved because the estimate of the 
percentage of mercury switches removed is highly uncertain and 
dependant on many assumptions. The commenter stated that determining 
the effectiveness of site-specific mercury switch removal programs by 
comparing uncertain statistics with an aggressive removal goal (80 
percent) may cause effective programs to have their approval revoked.
    Response: We determined at proposal that GACT for mercury emissions 
was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury switches from 
end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and shredded for 
use. GACT would be implemented by foundry owners purchasing scrap only 
from

[[Page 234]]

scrap providers that were participating in an EPA-approved program for 
switch removal, operating pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific 
plan (of equal effectiveness to an EPA-approved program) that ensured 
scrap providers had removed mercury switches, or by not melting scrap 
from end-of-life vehicles. We determined that the National Vehicle 
Mercury Switch Removal Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA-
approved program. However, we received two comments questioning how the 
effectiveness of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and 
suggestions for improving aspects of the rule related to program 
transparency, enforcement, and implementation. We have incorporated 
several of these suggested improvements into the final rule. The 
improvements include developing and maintaining a plan showing how the 
facility is participating in the approved program, documentation of 
communication to suppliers of the need to remove mercury switches and 
corroboration to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal 
procedures.
    The NVMSRP resulted from a 2-year process of collaboration and 
negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to create a dedicated 
nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing switches from end-of-
life vehicles. The stakeholders included EPA, automakers, steel 
manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap recyclers, and 
State agency representatives. These stakeholders signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) detailing their respective responsibilities and 
commitments in the national switch recovery effort. This effort will 
result in substantial reductions in mercury emissions from foundries by 
removing the majority of mercury from metal scrap. In addition, it will 
have environmental benefits from reducing mercury emissions from 
sources other than foundries and will reduce mercury releases to media 
other than air. EPA recounts this history not to show that the Agency 
is blindly accepting this negotiated agreement, but that EPA has 
examined the agreement anew in light of the requirements of section 
112(d) and finds that the program resulting from that agreement meets 
the statutory requirements. The success of the program has been 
documented by direct measurements of mercury in switches removed, and 
as of November 28, 2007, over 843,000 switches with 1,855 pounds of 
mercury have been recovered.
    As we stated in detail at proposal, this pollution prevention 
approach was determined to be GACT for reducing mercury emissions from 
foundries. Emissions of mercury result from the melting of scrap metal 
that contains mercury components. When these components are removed 
prior to charging the scrap to a metal melting furnace, the mercury 
emissions are prevented. Thousands of automobile recyclers have already 
joined the NVMSRP, although not all members have yet sent in recycled 
switches. Information on the program, including scrap suppliers who 
have joined and the number of switches they have turned in to date, can 
be found on the End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) Web site (http://www.elvsolutions.org
).

    There are many elements in the NVMSRP that are designed to measure 
success and to evaluate its effectiveness. One year following the 
effective date of the MOU and each year thereafter, the parties or 
their designees and EPA agreed to meet to review the effectiveness of 
the program at the State level based upon recovery and capture rates. 
The parties to the agreement will use the results to improve the 
performance of the program and to explore implementation of a range of 
options in that effort. Two and one-half years from the inception of 
the program, the parties agreed to meet and review overall program 
effectiveness and performance. This review will include discussion of 
the number of switches that have been collected and what factors have 
contributed to program effectiveness.
    We note here that the Administrator is committed to evaluating the 
effectiveness of the approved program on a continuing basis and is a 
party to the agreement that established the NVMSRP. The parties 
(including the Administrator) recently reviewed the program's 
effectiveness after 1 year. The 1-year review showed reasonable 
progress, with recycling programs now available in every State. The 
national program was slightly ahead of the schedule projected for 
start-up. We now expect switch removals to steadily increase over the 
next year as these programs begin to fully operate. If the 
Administrator finds the program to be ineffective at the next scheduled 
review under the MOU, or at any time as provided in the rule, the 
Administrator may disapprove the program in whole or in part (e.g., for 
a particular State), and participation in the program would no longer 
be a compliance option, leaving foundry owners or operators obligated 
to develop site-specific programs for EPA approval in order to meet the 
requirements of this rule. Under the site-specific program, it would 
fall on the foundry owner or operator to provide a detailed accounting 
of switches removed and vehicles processed from all of their scrap 
providers to enable the Administrator or permitting authority to 
evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the switch removal 
requirements. The somewhat lower documentation feature of the NVMSRP 
provides a strong incentive to all of the parties involved in switch 
removal to make every effort to ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a 
continuing basis. However, if the national program were to prove 
unsatisfactory and be subsequently disapproved as a compliance option, 
the burden would be on the foundry owner or operator to implement a 
site-specific approach. In either case (whether a national program or 
site-specific program), we have codified an approach that provides 
accountability and measures of effectiveness.
    A key element of measuring the success of the program is 
maintaining a database of participants that has detailed contact 
information; documentation showing when the participant joined the 
program (or started submitting mercury switches); records of all 
submissions by the participant including date, number of mercury 
switches; and confirmation that the participant has submitted mercury 
switches as expected. Another important element is aggregated 
information to be updated on a quarterly basis, including progress 
reports, summaries of the number of program participants by State, 
individual program participants, and records of State and national 
totals for the number of switches and the amount of mercury removed. 
The program is also estimating the number of motor vehicles recycled. 
The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during the first year of the 
program, every 6 months in the second and third year of the program, 
and annually thereafter. The reports prepared by ELVS will include the 
total number of dismantlers or other potential participants identified; 
the total number of dismantlers or others contacted; and the total 
number of dismantlers or others participating. The annual report will 
include the total mercury (in pounds) and number of mercury switches 
recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury, number of mercury 
switches, and an estimated national capture rate, with information 
organized by State, compared with the expected range of mercury switch 
retirement rates for each State; and the total number and identity of 
dismantlers or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal

[[Page 235]]

from the program. Mercury switch removal is already underway--more than 
1,855 pounds of mercury from more than 843,000 switches have been 
recovered to date by program participants. This represents almost 20 
percent of our estimated reduction in mercury emissions of 5 tons per 
year once the final rule is implemented.
    The commenters make valid points that the effectiveness of the rule 
could be improved by incorporating certain elements that the steel 
manufacturers have already agreed to in the MOU. We have revised the 
proposed rule to provide more specificity to the foundry owner or 
operator responsibilities and to improve the effectiveness of EPA-
approved programs, which may include programs other than the NVMSRP. In 
addition, we are including these same requirements in the option for 
developing a site-specific plan for switch removal. The rule changes 
include:
     Foundry owners or operators must develop and maintain 
onsite a plan demonstrating the manner through which their facility is 
participating in the EPA-approved program. The plan must include 
facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, 
and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for 
each facility.
     Foundry owners or operators must provide in the plan 
documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to 
suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to promote the 
removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request 
of the permitting authority, the owner or operator must provide 
examples of materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as 
letters, contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap 
inspection protocols.
     Foundry owners or operators must conduct periodic 
inspections or provide other means of corroboration to ensure that 
suppliers are aware of the need for and are implementing appropriate 
steps to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life 
vehicles.
    In regard to the commenter's question regarding estimates of the 
recovery rate, the 80 percent minimum recovery rate is a goal that all 
parties to the MOU agreed to work toward. We recognize that 80 percent 
recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two; however, the 
parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at least four 
million switches in the first 3 years of the NVMSRP and agreed to 
exceed this amount if possible. We believe that recovery of four 
million switches (approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per 
switch) in the first 3 years is a good beginning for working toward 
recovery of 80 percent of mercury switches. It is necessary to 
acknowledge that there will be an initial delay in many States that 
have recently joined the NVMSRP while individual dismantlers accumulate 
sufficient switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been 
estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch 
collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS website at 
http://www.elvsolutions.org, switches are typically collected in 3.5 gallon 

buckets that can hold up to 450 pellets).
    Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury 
switches is not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a 
program. The Administrator can evaluate the success of an EPA-approved 
program at any time, identify States where improvements might be 
needed, recommend options for improving the program in a particular 
State, and if necessary, disapprove the program as implemented in a 
State from being used to demonstrate compliance with the rule based on 
an assessment of this performance. The evaluation would be based on 
progress reports submitted to the Administrator that provide the number 
of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles 
processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered. The Administrator 
can assess the information with respect to the program's goal for 
percent switch recovery and trends in recovery rates. For example, as 
the NVMSRP has ramped up, switch recovery rates have increased from 
241,000 switches in 2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 months of 
2007.
    Comment: One commenter stated that unlike the corresponding section 
of the EAF rule, Sec.  63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed foundries rule 
does not indicate or confirm that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved 
by the EPA Administrator. The commenter states that this omission is 
counter to EPA's intentions as stated in section V.8.A of the MOU and 
does not provide a quick pathway for scrap providers to participate in 
a mercury switch removal program. The commenter stated that the final 
rule should provide pre-approval of the NVMSRP and pre-approval of 
existing State programs based on section VII.2.A.1.c of the MOU (which 
refers to existing State programs in its articulation of the NVMSRP's 
goal). The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight existing 
State programs (which account for about 1,900 participants) would 
eliminate the need for scrap providers participating in those programs 
to obtain EPA's approval of their site-specific plans under Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1).
    Response: We have revised the area source rule for iron and steel 
foundries to be consistent with the rule for EAF steelmaking by adding 
language confirming that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved by the 
EPA Administrator. We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery 
program mandated by State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program 
because they submitted documentation that the requirements are 
equivalent to (or more stringent than) the approved national program. 
No other States made such requests or submitted information showing 
equivalency; consequently, we are not currently identifying other State 
programs as EPA-approved in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter pointed to the provision in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval 
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data. The 
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and 
the effective date of the revocation provides sufficient time for the 
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1) and if there was a process in place for seeking 
reconsideration of the revocation.
    Response: The final rule requires the Administrator or delegated 
agency to review and approve the site-specific plan. This is what the 
proposed rule allowed because this authority was not among those listed 
in the rule as not being delegated. We believe the 90-day period is 
adequate for the approval process. The rule has no formal process for 
seeking reconsideration of revocation.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(2)(iii) for the program sponsor to submit reports at least 
yearly should be consistent with the corresponding requirement in the 
proposed EAF rule. The commenter noted that the proposed foundries rule 
required that the report contain, among other data, the number of 
vehicles processed while the proposed EAF rule requires ``the estimated 
number of vehicles processed.'' The commenter requested correction of 
the proposed foundries rule to read ``the estimated number of vehicles 
processed''.
    Three commenters requested that EPA harmonize the language and 
content of the proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule. Each 
of these commenters said that the proposed rule did not identify the 
NVMSRP as an

[[Page 236]]

approved program while the EAF proposed rule does identify the NVMSRP 
as an approved program. Two commenters added that the MOU suggests that 
the foundry rule should include and refer to the NVMSRP in its mercury 
requirements. One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(iv) for a mercury switch removal goal of 80 percent 
because this requirement does not apply the goal to each provider as 
does the proposed EAF rule. The implication is that there can be 
different mercury switch removal standards for different scrap 
providers to foundries. This language has the potential to create 
inequalities. One commenter noted several differences between the 
proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule including different 
heading, different phrasing of the same requirements, and specific 
differences in requirements and definitions.
    Response: We agree that the pollution prevention requirements for 
mercury for iron and steel foundries should be consistent with those 
for EAF steelmaking facilities because the technology for controlling 
mercury emissions (i.e., mercury switch removal from end-of-life 
vehicles) is the same for both source categories. We are making 
revisions to the final rule to ensure they are consistent. Changes to 
the site-specific plan for mercury switches include adding references 
to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and 
corrective action, requiring an 80 percent goal for each scrap provider 
and a separate semiannual report. Changes to the option for approved 
mercury programs include statements that the NVMSRP and the State of 
Maine program for mercury switch removal are EPA-approved programs, 
requiring reporting of an estimate of the number of vehicles processed 
instead of the number of vehicles processed, adding parenthetical 
mention of RCRA requirements, and adding a database requirement for 
progress reports. We have revised Sec.  63.10905 (Who implements and 
enforces this subpart?) to remove the phrase ``in addition to EPA'' and 
make the list of nontransferable authorities the same in both rules. We 
have also revised Sec.  63.10906 (What definitions apply to this 
subpart?) to add definitions applicable to the mercury switch removal 
program.
    Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that it is technically and 
economically unviable for small foundries to implement a site-specific 
plan for mercury switch removal that meets the proposed rule 
requirements. Also, small foundries do not have significant buying 
power to push suppliers to implement an EPA-approved mercury switch 
removal program, according to the commenters. While the commenters 
support the mercury switch removal efforts, they believe that the 
proposed rule requirements are unnecessarily onerous for foundries. One 
commenter stated they would support the mercury switch removal 
provisions once 80 percent of scrap dealers are registered in the 
Federal program.
    Response: Only foundries that purchase shredded motor vehicle scrap 
from non-program participants are required to prepare a site-specific 
plan. Most of the smaller area source foundries do not use shredded 
motor vehicle scrap, so they would not be required to prepare a site-
specific plan for mercury switch removal. Furthermore, as indicated 
previously, we are providing area source foundries 2 years to comply 
with the mercury switch removal program specifically because area 
source foundries purchase much smaller quantities of scrap compared to 
EAF steel mills. By providing this additional compliance time, we 
believe that the NVMSRP will be sufficiently mature that area source 
foundries will be able to purchase motor vehicle scrap from 
participants of the program. Therefore, very few area source foundries 
will need to prepare a site-specific plan for mercury switch removal as 
a consequence of this final rule. Based on our analysis, we do not 
expect any foundries to incur a significant adverse economic impact as 
a result of the mercury switch removal requirements in this final rule. 
The commenters provided no additional information on the specific 
requirements they claim to be ``unnecessarily onerous.'' Consequently, 
we made no direct revisions to the requirements for the site-specific 
plan, if it is selected as the compliance option.
    Comment: One commenter noted that scrap supply has been very tight 
and the costs have doubled over the past year. Another commenter 
estimated that eliminating shredded auto scrap could cost the 
commenter's foundries approximately $4 million per year.
    Response: We understand that the price of scrap has increased over 
the past few years; however, the past increase and any future changes 
in price will not be affected in any significant way by the rule 
requirements for mercury switch removal. We expect most facilities will 
comply by participating in the NVMSRP and purchasing scrap only from 
scrap providers who are also participants. This program is 
independently funded and administered by several stakeholders. 
Consequently, there is no reason for the commenter to eliminate 
shredded automobile scrap.
    Comment: One commenter stated the corrective action requirements 
present significant obstacles to getting reasonable site-specific plans 
approved. The commenter also said that what constitutes an acceptable 
plan will vary by State and region, resulting in uneven regulatory 
burden and unfair competitive advantages.
    Response: Corrective actions are an important component of the 
site-specific plan to ensure that scrap providers are removing mercury 
switches. Corrective actions are not unique to the area source rule in 
that iron and steel foundries impose specifications on scrap related to 
quality and safety, and facilities take corrective actions when scrap 
shipments do not meet these specifications. The Administrator or 
delegated authority is the appropriate entity for review and approval 
of these plans, and the rule provides a clear description of the 
requirements for the plans that can be used as criteria for approval or 
disapproval.
    Comment: Sixteen commenters stated that the mercury switch removal 
requirements should not apply to automotive scrap, such as brake rotors 
and pump housings, that do not contain mercury switches. Two commenters 
recommended that EPA clarify the type of scrap subject to the metallic 
scrap requirements by describing it as ``shredded auto bodies'' or 
``post-consumer automotive body scrap.'' One commenter requested 
specific exemptions from the mercury switch requirements for foundries 
that melt only pre-consumer scrap or that the rule be written to apply 
to only those melting recycled auto bodies. One commenter requested 
that the proposed rule include a fourth option that specifically 
excludes scrap that does not come in contact with mercury from the 
mercury switch removal provisions.
    Response: We have added a definition of the term ``motor vehicles 
scrap'' to the final rule. ``Motor vehicle scrap'' means vehicle or 
automobile bodies, including automobile body hulks, that have been 
processed through a shredder. This definition does not include 
automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous vehicle parts such as 
wheels, bumpers, or other components that do not contain mercury 
switches. We have also clarified the rule by adding provisions specific 
to scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. The final rule 
requires that for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment, the 
foundry must procure all scrap that does not contain

[[Page 237]]

motor vehicle scrap according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(4) of the final rule. Section 63.10885(b)(4) requires the 
owner or operator to certify in the notification of compliance status 
that the scrap used at the foundry does not contain motor vehicle scrap 
and to keep records to document the certification.
    Comment: Four commenters stated other products that contain mercury 
beside automotive switches are included in the scrap metal used by 
foundries and should be covered by the mercury requirements. Three of 
the commenters said that components in household and commercial 
appliances, sump and bilge pumps, heating and air conditioning units, 
and industrial equipment (e.g., tilt switches, thermometers, flame 
sensors, float sensors, relays, switches, barometers, manometers, 
floats, and other types of sensing and control equipment) also contain 
mercury and should be included in a removal program. This could be done 
by expansion of the NVMSRP or through the establishment and funding by 
mercury product manufacturers and the steelmaking sector and/or 
collection programs targeting other products that contain mercury.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be expanded to 
require the removal of all automotive switches, not just 80 percent of 
convenience light switches. Another commenter stated that the rule 
should expand the scope of the switch program to include any original 
equipment or aftermarket mercury tilt switch installed in a vehicle and 
used in convenience lighting, anti-lock braking systems (ABS) sensors, 
security systems, active ride control, or other applications.
    Response: During the development of the proposed EAF rule, the EPA 
considered the removal of other mercury-containing components in 
automobiles, such as switches in ABS, and determined the option was not 
justified as a beyond-the floor standard (72 FR 53824). Similarly, we 
conclude that removal of these sources of mercury does not represent 
GACT for iron and steel foundries. These sensors are considerably more 
difficult and time consuming to remove than are convenience light 
switches, and they contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of 
the mercury in end-of-life vehicles comes from convenience light 
switches). The commenters provided no data or rationale to support that 
the removal of other sources of mercury from the scrap supply was 
economically and technologically feasible for foundries or that their 
removal should represent GACT.
    Most mercury-containing components in appliances were phased out 
several years ago, and any that might remain would contribute very 
little mercury to the scrap supply compared to switches in automobiles. 
While some ABS contained mercury sensors, these too have been phased 
out and were much less common than mercury convenience light switches.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the NVMSRP is a voluntary 
program in his State and not all suppliers participate. The final rule 
should require effective participation by suppliers or compliance with 
the national program.
    Two commenters stated that the requirements of the mercury switch 
removal program must be incorporated in air permits, and the provisions 
must be clearly understood and enforceable by air agencies and their 
counterparts in other media programs. If these provisions are not 
explicit in the program, the pollution prevention approach will not be 
effective.
    Two commenters claimed that EPA has not taken the NVMSRP into 
account when developing these regulations in the development of this 
rule as required by the MOU. The commenters stated that the MOU was 
written as a nonbinding contract for EPA and several industries for the 
voluntary removal and disposal of mercury switches while the 
requirements in the rule are mandatory.
    Response: Although participation in the NVMSRP is voluntary, the 
pollution prevention standard for mercury establishes clear mandatory 
requirements for the removal of mercury switches to reduce mercury 
emissions from iron and steel foundries. Participation in the NVMSRP is 
only one option for compliance, and although we expect it to be the 
preferred compliance approach, each of the compliance approaches have 
common requirements to ensure switch removal and to provide an 
accounting of the number of switches removed and number of vehicles 
processed. The number of scrap providers participating in the NVMSRP 
has increased steadily since its inception, and as the area source 
rules for iron and steel foundries and EAF steelmaking are implemented, 
there will be additional incentives for many more scrap providers to 
participate to maintain their customer base.
    The rule requirements are explicit and should be clearly understood 
and enforceable by air agencies. Although the final rule exempts 
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to 
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already 
have a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this 
rule through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA must address ways to 
encourage or require mercury removal from scrap destined for export.
    Response: This area source rule addresses mercury in scrap destined 
for iron and steel foundries, and removal of mercury from scrap 
destined for export in not within the scope of the rule. However, we 
expect that the NVMSRP and State programs for mercury switch removal 
will result in the reduction in mercury in scrap for all users, 
including scrap that is exported.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that a sunset clause be added to 
the mercury switch removal requirements as mercury switches have been 
phased out of new automobiles.
    Response: Our information indicates that there is a 10-year supply 
of end-of-life vehicles that may contain mercury switches. 
Consequently, we do not think it is appropriate to add a sunset 
provision. However, review of the mercury requirements will be 
appropriate when the 8-year review of the standard is conducted.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to inspect the 
scrap poses a safety risk to the personnel inspecting the scrap.
    Response: Our information indicates that many facilities already 
inspect incoming scrap and have established procedures for doing so 
safely.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to direct 
that every recycling facility should be removing the same amount of 
switches because there is no mechanism that can accurately gauge if 
facilities are removing the maximum number of switches. The commenter 
explained that a facility can be removing only 10 switches per month 
and be maximizing their removal while another facility can be removing 
1,000 switches per month and only removing a portion of available 
switches based on the age and origin of the vehicles handled by the 
facility. Attempting to determine the recovery rate necessitates having 
both the number of switches recovered and the total number of vehicles 
processed but the number of vehicles processed is confidential business 
information (CBI). The commenter stated that the rate could vary from 
facility to facility and not be indicative of the facilities level of 
participation in an approved program.

[[Page 238]]

    Another commenter said that the requirements in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require scrap 
providers to divulge CBI or to provide sensitive information to foundry 
operators to comply.
    Response: The NVMSRP does not require that facilities remove the 
same number of switches. There are two key statistics in determining 
the recovery rate of mercury switches: the number of switches removed 
and the number of vehicles processed. This information is essential in 
determining the progress towards meeting the recovery goal of 80 
percent. The percent of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined 
in the MOU) is the number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life 
vehicles divided by the total mercury switch population in end-of-life 
vehicles in a given time period (e.g., each year of the program) times 
100. Furthermore, the 80 percent goal recognizes that the total mercury 
switch population is dependent on the age of the vehicles processed. 
This approach accounts for the differences in the capacity or 
processing rate of different facilities, which is the subject of the 
comment.
    It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and foundry 
operator to provide the information required by the rule and to 
establish procedures if necessary to protect confidential information. 
The requirements in the final rule include: (1) Periodic inspections or 
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and 
dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove mercury 
switches; (2) estimates of the number of switches removed; and (3) 
semiannual progress reports that provide the number of switches or 
weight of mercury removed, number of vehicles processed, estimate of 
the percent of switches removed, and certification of proper disposal 
of the switches. This information is an essential monitoring component 
of the rule to measure the effectiveness of a facility's pollution 
prevention program. The information on number of vehicles processed can 
be aggregated for a facility if it is important not to reveal the 
number of vehicles processed by a given scrap provider. We do not see 
nor did the commenter identify exactly what component of the requested 
information would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that the 
information is not emissions data and there is CBI involved, EPA and 
the permitting authorities have established procedures for managing and 
safeguarding CBI and will, of course, utilize them.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(i) and 
(ii), the requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle 
bodies used to make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of 
inaccessible switches. The commenter suggests replacing ``mercury 
switches'' with ``accessible mercury switches.''
    Response: We have defined mercury switch to include only those 
switches that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism. Our 
information indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily 
removed, and it is important to the success of the pollution prevention 
program that they be removed. Consequently, we are not adding the 
additional requirement that they be ``accessible,'' which would 
introduce additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be 
made as to what is accessible.
    Comment: One commenter stated the requirement in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(B) for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets 
specifications does not seem to allow for uncertainty or error. The 
commenter suggested that the language read ``Provisions for obtaining 
assurance from scrap providers that to the best of their knowledge, 
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap 
specification''.
    Response: We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter 
is necessary because the phrase ``to the best of their knowledge'' is 
subjective and provides no improvement. The foundry owner or operator 
must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the scrap meets 
specifications.
    Comment: One commenter said the requirement in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C) for a means of corroboration to ensure that scrap 
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to 
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap should 
be replaced with appropriate steps ``to encourage the removal of 
accessible mercury switches from motor vehicles to be shredded''.
    Response: We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap 
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to 
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is 
necessary to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution 
prevention requirements.
    Comment: One commenter asked what is meant by taking corrective 
action in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(D) since the nonconforming actions 
are committed by different parties? Does a scrap provider have any 
recourse when corrective actions are deemed necessary by a foundry?
    One commenter stated that any corrective action plan elements 
approved by the Administrator should reference MOU sections V.3.H and 
V.7.C, which defines good faith participation as ``the actual removal 
of switches or the implementation of source control programs to assure 
removal of switches prior to receipt''.
    Response: The procedures for taking corrective actions must be 
described by the owner or operator in the site-specific plan, and these 
procedures may vary depending on the type of scrap, scrap provider, and 
other factors, some of which may be unique to the facility. The concept 
is not a new one because foundry owners or operators have historically 
taken corrective actions when scrap does not meet their specifications. 
The area source rule places no direct requirements on the scrap 
provider; however, we expect that the scrap provider would work with 
customers (the iron and steel foundry owners or operators) to resolve 
any questions of recourse with respect to corrective actions.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to 
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of end-of-
life vehicles. The commenter stated that to impose such burdensome 
requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far exceeds the 
Agency's regulatory authority, poses CBI concerns, and imposes 
excessive paperwork and recordkeeping requirements on the scrap 
provider. These comments also apply to Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(v) because 
the requirements are likely to compel scrap providers to provide 
information to foundry operators to comply. Another commenter stated 
that it is unreasonable to burden foundries to ensure scrap providers 
and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove and 
dispose of mercury switches. The commenter also noted that foundries 
would not be able to obtain information on the number of mercury 
switches or weight of mercury removed because most foundries use scrap 
brokers and are a step or two removed from the dismantlers. Another 
commenter stated that it is inappropriate for EPA to regulate end-users 
and that EPA should directly regulate the scrap sellers and processors 
with respect to mercury switch removal.
    Response: The burden imposed by the Agency is on the foundry owner 
or operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a 
critical

[[Page 239]]

monitoring component of the rule. The owner or operator in turn must 
require this information from scrap providers, and if such information 
is not obtained, the owner or operator could be found in violation of 
the rule. It is in the interest of the scrap provider, the owner or 
operator, the public health, and the environment that such information 
be obtained to ensure that mercury releases to the environment are 
reduced by the removal of mercury switches.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the credit allowed in Sec.  
63.0085(b)(1)(iv) for calculating the 80 percent mercury switch removal 
goal for site-specific plans. The commenter objected to the credit 
because it allows counting of mercury removed from components other 
than convenience lighting while the approved plan requires only the 
removal of mercury switches from convenience lighting. The commenter 
stated that the provision is not consistent with the MOU, which states 
that only mercury switches used for convenience lighting will be 
counted for purposes of measuring program performance. The commenter 
argued that site-specific plans should not be held to a higher standard 
than the NVMSRP.
    Response: While it is true that only switches from convenience 
lighting apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS 
accepts switches from anti-lock brake systems and the automobile or 
scrap recyclers that remove them are paid the incentive fee of $1.00 
per switch. We believe that this provides an incentive to remove 
switches from anti-lock brake systems as well as for convenience 
lighting. In the requirements for site-specific plans, other sources of 
mercury are included in determining the 80 percent goal, such as in 
anti-lock brake systems, security systems, active ride control, and 
other applications. Inclusion of these other components in the site-
specific programs provides an incentive for their removal. These 
mercury-containing components contribute less mercury (13 percent 
compared to 87 percent from convenience light switches), and they are 
more difficult to locate, identify, and remove. Mercury-containing 
components in anti-lock brake systems will be the components other than 
convenience light switches that are most often removed. The removal of 
these components requires removing the rear seat and dismantling the 
anti-lock brake system. We believe that if a dismantler chooses to take 
the time to remove and recover mercury components from anti-lock brake 
systems or other components, they should receive some type of credit 
for doing so, thus they can include them in their 80 percent minimum 
recovery goal.

C. Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries

1. Subcategorization of Metal Melting Furnaces
    Comment: Five commenters stated that EPA should also consider a 5 
ton per hour (tph) melting capacity threshold for each EIF as the most 
appropriate way to minimize impacts on small area source foundries if 
the per furnace basis is used. Another commenter recommended a size 
threshold 5 tph for EIF if the per furnace basis was used. In addition, 
two commenters opposed the proposed rule and asked EPA to reconsider 
the applicability to melting processes or allowable emissions. As 
discussed in section IV.F of this preamble, several commenters stated 
that control of metal melting furnaces and/or EIF was not cost-
effective.
    Response: We considered EIF-specific thresholds, but concluded that 
these were not appropriate for several reasons. First, as described 
previously, we increased the size threshold for large area source 
foundries to 20,000 tpy. The increased size threshold more effectively 
reduced burden to the smaller foundries than an EIF-specific cut-off. 
Second, we could not identify a strong rationale as to why smaller 
induction furnaces at foundries with production greater than 20,000 tpy 
should be subcategorized. A significant portion of EIFs at foundries 
greater than 20,000 tpy metal melting capacity were controlled, 
regardless of the EIF size. Finally, emissions from EIF furnaces are 
much better correlated with the total melt production than the size of 
the furnace. Smaller furnaces can have higher emissions than larger 
furnaces if they process more metal. Therefore, we determined that an 
EIF-specific threshold was not appropriate and is not included in this 
final rule.
2. Emission Standards
    Comment: One commenter stated that because area source standards 
will not be subject to residual risk standards, it is important to 
regulate emissions of particulate matter (PM) and HAP as well as 
possible under this rule.
    Response: We agree. As discussed in the proposal preamble, we 
evaluated more stringent emission limits, but found that these were not 
cost-effective for existing sources. Although we increased the size 
threshold in this final rule, we rejected higher thresholds or 
additional EIF-specific thresholds specifically to regulate emissions 
of PM and HAP as well as possible, while considering the costs of these 
regulations.
    Comment: One commenter noted that in the proposal preamble EPA 
refers to the emission limit as pounds per ton of metal melted, but the 
regulatory language in Sec.  63.10895(b)(1) refers to ``per ton of 
metal charged.'' The commenter requested clarification as to EPA's 
intent, and recommended the use of ``per ton metal charged'' as the 
charge into the furnace is more amenable to measurement.
    Response: We agree with the commenter. We intended to require 
foundries to measure and record the tons of metal charged to the 
furnace as indicated in the proposed regulatory language. Although we 
commonly refer to this as tons of metal melted, we acknowledge that 
there is a subtle difference and we have tried to consistently refer to 
``tons metal charged'' as the basis of the standards in this final rule 
and preamble.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PM emissions limit (0.8 
pound of PM per ton of metal charged) is too low because some existing 
wet scrubbers cannot achieve this emission limit and because the 
alternatives to improve the emission performance of these systems would 
be very costly.
    Response: The available data clearly indicate that the 0.8 lb/ton 
emission limit is easily achievable with a well performing wet scrubber 
or baghouse control system. The available data also indicated that a 
small percentage of cupola wet scrubbers would need to be upgraded in 
order to meet this emission limit. We have considered the costs of 
these upgrades and determined that these upgrades are reasonable for 
the large area source foundries. GACT need not be an emission limit 
that all wet scrubbers can meet, regardless of their design or 
performance. We selected the 0.8 lb/ton PM limit as GACT because this 
level of performance represented the typical performance of the 
generally available control technologies used to reduce PM and metal 
HAP emissions from foundry melting furnaces at reasonable cost.
    Comment: One commenter noted that Sec.  63.10895(a) requires 
``each'' melting furnace to operate a capture system, but Sec.  
63.10898(e)(3) provides default emission factors for uncontrolled EIF 
not equipped with a capture system for use in emissions averaging 
calculation. The commenter requested clarification that capture and 
collection systems are not required for ``each'' melting furnace.
    Response: We agree. We have revised the language in Sec.  
63.10895(a) of the proposed rule and Sec.  63.10895(b) of the

[[Page 240]]

final rule to indicate that ``You must operate a capture and collection 
system for each metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron and 
steel foundry unless that furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part 
of an emissions averaging group.''
    Comment: One commenter requested elaboration on EPA's intent when 
referencing ``accepted engineering standards published by ACGIH'' for 
capture systems.
    Response: Accepted engineering standards such as design procedures 
for local exhaust hoods and exhaust systems are included in each annual 
edition of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice 
published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists (ACGIH). The purpose of the rule requirement is to require 
foundries to install and operate capture systems using appropriate 
design factors for the hood and furnace emissions so that the capture 
systems will operate properly.
    Comment: One commenter said that he assumed the PM emissions limit 
applies only to melting (SCC 30400303), but it would be impossible to 
segregate these emissions from charge handling and inoculation (SCC 
30400315 and 30400310), and stated that this issue requires further 
evaluation.
    Response: In general, all activities that are performed in the 
metal melting furnaces are subject to the emission limits. These 
include, but are not limited to: Charging, melting, alloying, refining, 
slagging, and tapping. We have provided more detail regarding the 
operating conditions for the performance tests to clarify this issue. 
Generally, inoculation is performed in the transfer ladle and transfer 
ladle operations are subject only to the building opacity limit. 
However, if inoculation occurs in the melting furnace, then inoculation 
emissions are subject to the overall furnace emission limit.
    Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed opacity limit is 
more restrictive than the major source rule since it does not include 
an allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent 
opacity. The commenters stated that the area source rule should not be 
more stringent than the major source foundry rule, which was based on 
MACT, and recommended that EPA include, at a minimum, an allowance for 
one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity. Another 
commenter stated that the opacity limit should not be based on MACT, 
but on GACT, which the commenter believes would be 30 percent or 40 
percent average opacity.
    Response: We agree that the proposed opacity limit should not be 
more stringent than the corresponding MACT standard. We reviewed the 
State and local agency opacity requirements for selected States with 
significant foundry populations. There are several States that require 
20 percent opacity, but nearly all of these State programs provide an 
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour; allowances provided in 
different State regulations include: 27, 30, 40 and 60 percent opacity 
limits. Although we do not agree with the second commenter that a limit 
of 30 to 40 percent opacity limit would represent GACT, we do agree 
that one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity reflects 
GACT for area source foundries. In response to the commenters' 
concerns, we have revised the proposed opacity limit to include the 
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity.
3. Monitoring
    Comment: Eighteen commenters said that EPA should allow visible 
emissions (VE) observations to document compliance with the fugitive 
emissions limit in order to reduce burden on small foundries. One of 
the commenters stated that EPA underestimated the burden associated 
with Method 9 observations. The commenters recommended that if visible 
emissions were observed, a Method 9 test could be conducted to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit. Another commenter stated 
that EPA should require VE observations on a weekly basis (noncertified 
individual would be acceptable under certain conditions) in addition to 
the semiannual Method 9 readings because weekly observations would be 
more effective for compliance than a certified reading occurring twice 
a year.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that allowing VE 
observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7), with a 
subsequent test by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) is a 
reasonable alternative for determining compliance with the opacity 
limit for fugitive emissions from foundry operations and may reduce 
compliance costs. In response, we have revised Table 1 of the final 
rule to include such an alternative. The alternative allows foundries 
to conduct the semiannual performance tests using Method 22 instead of 
Method 9. The results of the Method 22 test demonstrate compliance with 
the opacity limit if no visible emissions occur for at least 90 percent 
of the 1-hour observation period. If visible fugitive emissions from 
foundry operations occur for more than 10 percent of the Method 22 
observation period (i.e., more than a cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-
hour period), the owner or operator must conduct a Method 9 test as 
soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the Method 22 test to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to install and 
maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) is potentially 
costly and unnecessary. The commenter suggested that visual checks and 
manual recording of the operating parameter values once per shift as 
used in existing title V permits be allowed instead of a CPMS.
    Response: This commenter objected to CPMS as too costly and 
unnecessary. As discussed below, other commenters objected to the 
proposed operating parameters for baghouses, wet scrubbers, and 
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) that would be monitored. In response 
to these comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring provisions 
for PM control devices. For PM control devices at existing affected 
sources, the final rule requires the owner or operator to conduct 
initial and periodic inspections of each PM control device. These 
inspection requirements are included in many title V permits for PM 
control devices. We have deleted the proposed inspection and monitoring 
requirements for fabric filters that required pressure drop monitoring 
of baghouses. Bag leak detection systems are required for fabric 
filters used at new affected sources. The owner or operator of an 
existing affected source may choose to comply with the requirements for 
bag leak detection systems or the new inspection requirements.
    We have also revised the proposed monitoring requirements for wet 
scrubbers and ESP to apply to new affected sources instead of existing 
affected sources. The final rule requires CPMS to measure the 3-hour 
pressure drop and water flow rate for each wet scrubber. For ESP, the 
owner or operator must maintain the voltage and secondary current (or 
total power output) to the control device at or above the level 
established during the initial or subsequent performance test. Table 2 
of the final rule requires the operating limit for a wet scrubber to be 
based on the average pressure drop and average scrubber water flow rate 
measured during the performance test; for an ESP, the operating limit 
is to be based on the minimum hourly average measurements.
    Comment: Four commenters objected to basing the baghouse pressure 
drop

[[Page 241]]

operating limit on the pressure drop range observed during the 
performance test. The commenters stated that baghouses can operate 
effectively over a range of pressure drops and a single test is too 
short to encounter the full range of pressure drops that are normally 
encountered. The commenters recommended using manufacturer's 
recommended operating ranges or historical performance for the baghouse 
pressure drop operating limits. One commenter suggested volumetric flow 
rate or static pressure upstream of the baghouse may be more 
appropriate operating parameters to monitor. Four commenters objected 
to the baghouse pressure drop operating limit being determined across 
each baghouse cell. The commenters recommended using the pressure drop 
across the entire baghouse. One commenter said that baghouse pressure 
drop varies with overall building ventilation and balancing air flow in 
the foundry is a balancing act, and varies with the outdoor 
temperature. The commenter stated that it is impossible to capture 
these scenarios during a performance test.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that pressure drop is not a 
good indicator of baghouse performance. The requirement for pressure 
drop monitoring originated from baghouse maintenance requirements 
included in title V permits. As discussed above, we have replaced these 
provisions in the proposed rule with other inspection and maintenance 
requirements.
    Comment: Three commenters objected to basing the wet scrubber 
pressure drop operating limit on the pressure drop range observed 
during the performance test for the same reasons as their comments on 
baghouse pressure drop operating limits. The commenters argued that 
like baghouses, scrubbers can operate effectively over a range of 
pressure drops and a single test is too short to encounter the full 
range of pressure drops that are normally encountered. The commenters 
recommended using manufacturer's recommendations or operation history 
for setting the operating limits. One commenter extended these comments 
to electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. In performance tests 
conducted on a cupola wet scrubber, we noted a strong (inverse) 
correlation between the wet scrubber pressure drop and the PM emissions 
from the control system. Relatively small changes in the pressure drop 
altered the emissions by a factor of two. A foundry may always re-test 
the control system at new (lower) operating limits if the operating 
limits determined during the initial test are too restrictive, but the 
foundry must demonstrate that they can meet the emissions limit at that 
lower operating limit. That said, we recognize that many existing 
foundries are not equipped with CPMS. Therefore, we have revised the 
monitoring requirements for existing sources, but we retain the 
requirements for CPMS for new sources.
    Comment: One commenter stated that new sources should not be 
required to install bag leak detection systems, but should be allowed 
to monitor their baghouses similar to existing sources. The commenter 
requested further explanation on EPA's position on this issue.
    Response: New sources should be able to employ improved monitoring 
technology. Wherever possible, we request that new sources use 
automated systems that will measure and record operating parameters (or 
emissions). Over time, we expect that this approach will improve 
monitoring technology and reduce costs for existing and new sources.
4. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the 
requirement to have a written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan 
because writing the plan is an unnecessary burden (in the range of 
$2,000 to $2,500 for a small facility, according to the commenters) 
with little environmental benefit. According to the commenters, 
monitoring and recording operating parameters are sufficient to 
demonstrate compliance and this can be done without a written plan.
    Response: We have reduced the burden associated with preparation of 
the O&M plan by revising the monitoring requirements. Several portions 
of the O&M plan requirements are related to the operation and 
maintenance of bag leak detection systems and CPMS. The final rule 
requires these monitoring systems only for new sources. We continue to 
believe that an O&M plan provides EPA and foundry representatives with 
a single source of information on monitoring and maintenance 
responsibilities. In the development of the proposed requirements for 
the O&M plan, we included many of the industry comments and 
recommendations for requirements that were reasonable for area source 
facilities.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA expand the O&M plan to 
include actions to be taken in the event of an opacity exceedance. If 
after a specified time with no opacity exceedances, the facility could 
be allowed to make weekly observations with a non-certified individual 
instead of Method 9 readings twice a year.
    Response: If the foundry exceeds the opacity limit, then that 
foundry is out of compliance with the emissions limit and could be 
subject to enforcement actions. Although we considered more frequent 
visible emission observations, the visible emission observations could 
not be tied to the opacity limit. Therefore, if visible emissions were 
observed, an opacity observation would be needed to verify that the 
visible emissions did not exceed the opacity limit. This would greatly 
increase the burden associated with the opacity requirements, which 
many commenters suggested were already too burdensome. A foundry may 
use weekly visible emission observations as means to ensure compliance 
with the opacity limit if they choose, and the foundry may include such 
observations and corrective actions to be taken within their O&M plan 
if they choose.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the daily check of the 
compressed air supply for a pulse-jet baghouse was not necessary. The 
commenters argued that static pressure exceeding allowable ranges would 
be a better indicator of a problem and the need for corrective action 
measures. Three commenters stated that the monthly visual bag 
inspections are not necessary, and suggested that semi-annual 
inspections would be sufficient. Similarly, the commenters recommended 
that the quarterly inspection of baghouse physical integrity and fans 
is unnecessary and that semi-annual inspections would be sufficient.
    Response: The commenters' concerns have been addressed because we 
have removed the baghouse inspection and maintenance requirements from 
the proposed rule. These requirements have been replaced with more 
general inspection and maintenance requirements for PM control devices 
(baghouses, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators).
    Comment: One commenter requested guidance on what an acceptable 
alarm set point is when using a continuous bag leak detection system.
    Response: The alarm set point will vary according to the design of 
the equipment. For additional information on bag leak detection systems 
that operate on the triboelectric effect, we encourage the commenter to 
review ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
September 1997, EPA-

[[Page 242]]

454/R-98-015, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication 
PM98164676. This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161. This document also may be available on the 
TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html.

    Comment: One commenter stated that, while 30 days may be sufficient 
time to implement minor repairs (i.e., time between inspections), some 
repairs may require more time (e.g., to solicit contract bids, perform 
engineering analysis, and install equipment). The commenter requested 
that the rule allow additional time for foundries to complete necessary 
repairs.
    Response: In response to the commenter's concern, we have added 
additional time to implement repairs to capture systems. The final rule 
requires that repairs be completed as soon as practicable, but no later 
than 90 days.
    Comment: One commenter stated that capture system requirements 
should be included in the O&M plan because PM build-up in capture 
systems, particularly for batch processes such as EIFs, could 
significantly reduce capture efficiency. The commenter recommended that 
EPA include capture system in the inspections required for control 
systems. Specifically, Sec.  63.10985(a) be revised to require ``* * * 
Each capture and collection system must meet and maintain * * * ''; 
Sec.  63.10896(a) be revised to require an O&M plan `` * * * for each 
capture and control device * * * ''; add a paragraph Sec.  
63.10896(a)(6) to require ``Information on the inspection of the 
capture system components, including, but not limited to, emission 
intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, 
plenums, and fans, to assure there is not material build-up impeding 
flow to the control device.''; and revising Sec.  63.10897(c)(8) to 
``Inspect emission intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, 
dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans for wear.''
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions. While capture 
systems have been included in the O&M plans for major source rules, we 
have not included requirements for capture systems in the area source 
rule as one way of reducing compliance costs for area source foundries. 
In addition, the suggested revisions to Sec.  63.10897(c)(8) are not 
needed as inspection requirements for the capture system are already 
specified in Sec.  63.10897(e).
5. Testing Requirements
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how 1-hour 
performance tests are to be conducted on EIFs that operate in a batch 
mode for 25 minutes. Additionally, the commenter inquired if there were 
operating condition requirements, such as operating within 10 percent 
of the stated melt capacity, for the performance test or if the 
operating conditions were not relevant because the emission limit is 
normalized by the melt rate. Another commenter requested guidance on 
methods for measuring emissions per ton charges for line frequency 
furnace shops, and noted concern on how a 1-hour emission test would 
provide a representative estimate of the emissions from a series of 
EIFs all cycling differently.
    Response: In this final rule, we have clarified that ``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.'' For the 25-minute batch time cited by the first 
commenter, approximately two batches would be completed during the 1-
hour run. If multiple EIFs are all cycling differently, the 1-hour run 
would capture different cycles for the different furnaces. In the 
course of three 1-hour runs, data for several complete cycles will be 
collected. We do not specify operation within 10 percent of the stated 
melt capacity of the furnace because, as noted by the commenter, 
emission limits are normalized by the tons of metal charged. However, 
the melting rates are required to be indicative of normal production 
conditions.
    Comment: One commenter said that when there are many furnaces and 
other unregulated sources exhausting to a baghouse, the performance 
test will be problematic because it will be difficult to identify 
suitable test ports that are not influenced by other disturbances. The 
cost of duct rework, according to the commenter, is approximately 
$100,000.
    Response: First, we have included provisions for determining 
compliance with the emissions limit in situations where regulated and 
non-regulated emission streams are mixed. We recognize that these 
provisions may not be suitable for all duct conditions. However, one 
can always demonstrate compliance with the emission limit on the 
combined stream. Using a baghouse control system, it is likely that the 
baghouse exhaust can be used to demonstrate compliance with the PM 
limit, even when other PM sources (such as sand handling) are included. 
Moreover, we have also provided an alternative metal HAP emission 
limit. As emission limits were not set for other PM emission sources at 
the foundry precisely because these PM sources do not contain 
appreciable metal HAP, we expect that the baghouse exhaust can be used 
to demonstrate compliance with the metal HAP emission limit, regardless 
of what other unregulated streams may also be controlled by the 
furnaces' baghouse.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA eliminate the 
requirement to re-test every 5 years for PM emissions provided that 
initial results were less than 75 percent of the emission limit and no 
process changes are made.
    Response: We considered this alternative, but concluded that 
elimination of the subsequent tests (every 5 years) was not 
appropriate. First, we have reduced the monitoring burden for the 
control systems in this final rule compared to the proposed rule. 
Therefore, the subsequent tests are necessary to assure ongoing 
compliance with the emission limits. Second, the subsequent tests do 
not pose an unreasonable compliance cost to large (greater than 20,000 
tpy) area source foundries.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, in order to perform an 
emissions test on the EIFs at his facility, the plant would have to 
install a capture and blower system that costs almost $1 million just 
to determine whether or not they are already in compliance.
    Response: We recognize that testing uncontrolled EIFs is difficult. 
For this reason, we have added to the final rule special provisions for 
testing EIFs. For EIFs equipped with emission control devices, this 
final rule allows existing foundries to use the performance test 
results for one EIF to demonstrate compliance for other EIFs provided 
the other furnaces are similar with respect to the type of emission 
control device used, composition of the scrap charged, furnace size, 
and melting temperature. For uncontrolled EIFs, the final rule allows 
the use of test results from another furnace to demonstrate compliance 
if the test results are prior to any control device, and the furnaces 
are similar with respect to the composition of scrap charged, furnace 
size, and melting temperature. In addition, for EIFs without emission 
capture systems, we have clarified in the final rule that existing 
foundries may install a temporary enclosure for the purpose of sampling 
emissions. A permanent enclosure and capture system is not required for 
the purpose of testing.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the preamble stated that 
performance tests are required within 180 days of

[[Page 243]]

promulgation, and stated that this was inadequate time to install 
controls and demonstrate compliance since it takes 180 days to get a 
construction permit.
    Response: We have revised the preamble to the final rule to state 
that the owner or operator must conduct the performance test within 180 
days of the compliance date, not the effective date.

D. Implementation and Enforcement

    Comment: Seven commenters supported EPA's proposal to exempt area 
source foundries from title V permit requirements because requiring 
title V permits would add significantly to the compliance costs with 
little to no additional environmental benefit. Two commenters stated 
that the requirements of the mercury switch removal program must be 
incorporated in air permits and the provisions must be clearly 
understood and enforceable by air agencies and their counterparts in 
other media programs. If these provisions are not explicit in the 
program, the pollution prevention approach will not be effective.
    Response: We did not receive any adverse comments on our decision 
to exempt this area source category from title V permitting 
requirements. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 
52997, September 17, 2007) we found that the cost of title V permitting 
would be burdensome and the cost would not be justified because there 
would be little to no potential gains in compliance if title V permits 
were required. We also concluded that title V permitting was 
unnecessary to assure compliance with the NESHAP because the statutory 
requirements for implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP by EPA 
and the delegated States are sufficient to assure compliance without 
title V permits. In addition, we have added provisions to the final 
rule to improve the enforceability and effectiveness of the mercury 
switch removal program. The commenters did not provide any new 
information to change these conclusions. Therefore, we are not revising 
the final rule to require title V permits for the mercury switch 
removal requirements. Although the final rule exempts facilities that 
do not have a title V permit from the requirement to obtain a permit 
for the purposes of this rule, sources that already have a title V 
permit generally must include the requirements of this rule through a 
permit reopening or at renewal according to the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 70 and the title V permit program.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the addition of the phrase ``in 
addition to EPA'' to the provisions for implementation and enforcement 
in Sec.  63.10905. The commenter said this language (which is not in 
the EAF rule) suggests that two separate entities have equal 
implementation and enforcement authorities except for nontransferable 
authorities listed in Sec.  63.10905(a). The commenter stated that this 
dualism would create legal issues and could create practical problems 
for stakeholders. The commenter requests that this phrase be removed 
from the final rule.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have removed this phrase 
from the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter noted that Sec.  63.10905(c) refers to the 
authorities which cannot be delegated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) 
of this section, then lists (c)(1) through (5). The commenter also asks 
why this rule has two extra non-transferable authorities concerning 
opacity that are not in the EAF rule.
    Response: We have revised the proposed rule to cite paragraph 
(c)(5) instead of (c)(4) as the commenter noted. There are five non-
transferable authorities in this final rule that cover the emissions 
limits, opacity limit, monitoring, test methods, and recordkeeping/
reporting requirements. We have also revised the proposed rule to 
specifically reserve EPA's authority for review and approval of local, 
State, or national mercury switch removal programs. The proposed EAF 
rule should have cited the emissions limit and opacity limit as well as 
the monitoring, test methods, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. 
We will revise the proposed EAF rule to show five non-transferable 
authorities instead of three and to reserve authority for approval of 
local, State, or national mercury switch removal programs.

E. Definitions

    Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA include a definition of 
``total metal HAP'' as provided in the amendments to the major source 
foundry rule currently under development.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and have revised 
the proposed rule accordingly.
    Comment: One commenter said that the rule should define ``fugitive 
emissions'' as in the foundry MACT standard, but further clarify that 
fugitive emissions do not include emissions that stay within the 
building as follows: ``Fugitive emissions is a drifting emission that 
exits a building in a manner other than though a collected or 
uncollected, powered exhaust fan/vent.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter that ``fugitive emissions'' 
should be defined and we have added a definition of ``fugitive 
emissions'' commensurate with the one used in the major source foundry 
MACT standards. We disagree that fugitive emissions excludes 
uncollected dust that is exhausted through general building ventilation 
or roof fans.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the final rule should include a 
definition for ``scrap provider'' that is the same as the definition in 
the EAF rule with the recommended changes. The commenter recommended 
that the proposed definition of ``scrap provider'' in the EAF rule be 
revised because the definition includes brokers who have no oversight 
over scrap preparation and delivery. According to the commenter, a 
revised definition should allow brokers to considered ``scrap 
providers'' as a contractual matter. The commenter suggested that EPA 
define ``scrap provider'' to mean ``the final preparer of scrap 
delivered to a steel mill, or a broker when a brokered transaction 
specifies that the broker provide information to the steel mill from 
the scrap processors participating in the brokered transaction.''
    Response: We agree that the definition of ``scrap provider'' in the 
EAF rule should be included in the final rule. We disagree that the 
proposed definition in the EAF rule should be revised because the 
definition as proposed allows a broker to be considered a scrap 
provider. The foundry owner or operator must ensure that the broker 
receives scrap only from suppliers participating in an EPA-approved 
program or for the site-specific option, that the suppliers have 
removed mercury switches and provide an accounting of the number of 
switches removed and vehicles processed, along with all of the other 
requirements in the site-specific plan.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the final rule include the 
definition of ``motor vehicle scrap'' as revised to refer to shredded 
scrap that contains shredded end-of-life vehicles. The commenter 
explained that shredded scrap typically includes shredded end-of-life 
or obsolete appliances as well as other materials. Alternatively, the 
commenter suggested replacing the definition of ``motor vehicle scrap'' 
with a definition of ``shredded scrap'', which would contain some 
fraction of shredded end-of-life vehicles.
    Response: We agree that the definition of ``motor vehicle scrap'' 
should be included in the final rule. We have added the definition in 
the EAF rule to this final rule. The definition of ``motor

[[Page 244]]

vehicle scrap'' is specific to vehicles processed in a shredder. We do 
not see a need to revise the definition as suggested by the commenter.
    Comment: One commenter requested EPA to add the definition of 
``nonferrous metal'' in 40 CFR 471.02 of the effluent guidelines for 
nonferrous metals forming and metal powders point source category. 
Under 40 CFR 471.02(a), ``nonferrous metal'' is defined as ``any pure 
metal other than iron or any metal alloy for which a metal other than 
iron is its major constituent in percent by weight.'' This definition 
distinguishes the primary and secondary production of other metals or 
alloys (which are covered by air emission standards for other source 
categories) from the ferrous metals iron and steel.
    Response: We added this definition of ``nonferrous metal'' to the 
final rule except that we changed the phrase ``a metal other than 
iron'' to ``an element other than iron''.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that EPA provide State and 
local agencies with sufficient additional grants so that they may 
participate in the implementation of additional area source rules. 
According to the commenters, Federal grants currently fall far short of 
what is needed to support State and local agencies in carrying out 
their existing responsibilities, and budget requests for the last 2 
years have called for additional cuts. The commenters claimed that, 
without additional funding, some State and local air agencies may not 
be able to adopt and enforce additional area source rules. One 
commenter further stated that, even for permitting authorities that do 
not adopt these area source rules, it is possible that these rules will 
increase their work loads and resource needs. The commenter stated 
that, for example, synthetic minor permits (or Federally Enforceable 
State Operating Permits) will need to incorporate all applicable 
requirements, including area source standards. Noting that the title V 
permit fee funds are not available for these efforts, the commenter 
asserted that many State and local air agencies do not have sufficient 
resources for these responsibilities.
    Response: State and local air programs are an important and 
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA 
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking 
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the 
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance 
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these 
programs; however, we do not believe that this issue can be addressed 
through this rulemaking.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is promulgating standards for the Iron 
Foundries and Steel Foundries area source categories that reflect the 
practices currently in use by sources in these area source categories, 
and these standards represent what constitutes GACT for these 
categories under section 112(d)(5). GACT standards are technology-based 
standards. The level of State and local resources needed to implement 
this rule is not a factor that we consider in determining what 
constitutes GACT under section 112(d)(5). Moreover, we note that the 
commenters did not challenge our proposed determination to exempt from 
title V the Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries area source categories, 
although they did recommend that the pollution prevention standard for 
mercury be incorporated in title V permits.
    Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through this 
rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to 
working with State and local agencies to implement this rule. State and 
local agencies that receive grants for continuing air programs under 
CAA section 105 should work with their project officer to determine 
what resources are necessary to implement and enforce the area source 
standards. EPA will continue to provide the resources appropriated for 
section 105 grants consistent with the statute and the allotment 
formula developed pursuant to the statute.

F. Impact Estimates

1. Environmental Impacts
    Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that the emission reductions 
that can be achieved from uncontrolled EIFs are overestimated because 
EPA used an unrepresentative emission factor. Twelve commenters stated 
that EPA should use ``an already well-referenced PM emission factor 
that is representative and technically defensible''. One commenter 
recommended that EPA use the current emission factor in AP-42 (0.9 lb/
ton). Another commenter recommended basing the emission factor on data 
reported by Shaw (1982). Twelve of the commenters described the dataset 
as limited and problematic as much of the data are not verifiable and 
one commenter said that the baghouse catch data were suspect.
    Response: First, the impact assessment performed was to assess the 
impacts of the EIFs that could not meet the PM or metal HAP emission 
limit without a control device. To develop an assessment of the worst-
case economic impacts, we assumed all EIFs would have to add a control 
device. In actuality, we do believe that a significant portion 
(approximately one-half) of EIFs will be able to demonstrate compliance 
with the 0.8 lb/ton PM emission limit or the alternative 0.06 lb/ton 
metal HAP limit without installing additional controls. We agree that 
the EIFs that do meet this limit are ``clean burning.'' However, 
available data indicate that many EIFs may have PM emissions that 
significantly exceed this limit. The PM emission factor used previously 
was developed to model the emission reductions and cost-effectiveness 
of these reductions of the EIFs that could not meet the PM emission 
limit as proposed.
    In response to these comments, we reevaluated the data used to 
assess the PM emission factor for EIFs. We did identify a few 
``baghouse catch'' data that included operations other than EIF melting 
operations, such as inoculation. While we do expect that capture and 
control systems will likely help to reduce PM emissions from 
inoculation, inoculation emissions are primarily magnesium which is not 
a HAP metal. As such, we do not expect that these PM will contribute 
significantly to the total metal HAP emissions. Therefore, we did 
exclude these data although these PM emissions could be considered a 
co-benefit of the proposed furnace emission controls. We also included 
the data from Shaw, as requested by one commenter, although these data 
are provided only as secondary references, all of which are 30 years 
old or more. We also considered more recent Casting Emissions Reduction 
Program (CERP) data. The augmented data set supports the average 
emission factor reported in AP-42, but also indicates that those EIFs 
not able to meet the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit have an average emission 
factor of 1.6 lb/ton. The augmented data set and basic statistics for 
the data set are provided in a memorandum to the docket.
    Although this PM emission factor is 20 percent lower than the 
emission factor used in developing the nationwide impacts for the 
proposed rule, as stated previously, the second and major reason the PM 
reductions (as well as the total control costs) were overstated in the 
impacts as estimated for the proposed rule is that many EIF will be 
able to meet the proposed rule without additional control requirements 
(or with the installation of suppression controls only). To develop a 
more

[[Page 245]]

realistic assessment of the nationwide impacts, we performed a Monte 
Carlo assessment. Based on the emission data compiled as described 
previously, a log-normal distribution was used with a mean of -0.25 and 
standard deviation of 0.7. This distribution leads to a median emission 
factor of 0.8 lb/ton and an arithmetic average emission factor of 1.0 
lb/ton, which agrees well with the AP-42 emission factor of 0.9 lb/ton. 
By using the Monte Carlo analysis, we address both reasons the PM 
emission reductions were overestimated at proposal.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should use the default 
average emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs used in developing the 
impact estimates. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the default 
factor used by EPA in the impacts analysis is too high and lower 
average emission factors should be used for both the impacts analysis 
and the default factor for emissions averaging.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the average emissions 
factor for uncontrolled EIFs should be used as a default factor. If we 
allowed foundries to use the average emissions factor, then many of the 
uncontrolled EIFs would have actual emissions higher than the assumed 
emissions. A default factor of 3 lb/ton of PM was selected at proposal 
as an upper end estimate of the emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs. 
Based on the expanded PM data set, a 3 lb/ton emissions factor 
represents the 98th percentile of the distribution. Using a 3 lb/ton PM 
default emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs provides a very high 
degree of assurance that an emissions averaging group meets the 0.8 lb/
ton emission limit when not measuring the emissions from all 
uncontrolled furnaces. EPA believes that it is appropriate to use a 
conservative figure for the default emissions factor, in part because 
foundries have the option to establish an actual emissions rate by 
testing. However, EPA recognizes that using a 3 lb/ton emission factor 
overestimates emissions from 98 percent of uncontrolled furnaces, and 
believes that using an emissions factor based on a somewhat lower 
percentile would reduce the burden of initial testing and still provide 
adequate assurance that the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit is met for 
multiple furnaces using emissions averaging. Therefore, we have revised 
the proposed rule to allow uncontrolled EIFs that are not equipped with 
a capture system and have not been previously tested to assume an 
uncontrolled emission factor of 2 lb/ton, which is approximately the 
75th percentile. If a lower emissions rate is needed for an 
uncontrolled EIF in order for the emissions averaging group to meet the 
emissions limit, the foundry has the option to test any uncontrolled 
EIF and establish a measured emissions rate for use in the emissions 
averaging equation.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA overstated HAP emission 
reductions and did not fully take into consideration the different 
types of melting furnaces and the variety of control equipment 
available.
    Response: Metal HAP emission reductions were overstated for the 
same reasons that the PM emission reductions were overstated. However, 
we respectfully disagree with the commenter with respect to the types 
of furnaces and controls. The emission and cost impacts were performed 
on a furnace specific basis, considering the type of control device 
installed for each furnace. We also evaluated certain design aspects of 
the control system to assess which controls could or could not meet the 
0.8 lb/ton PM emissions limit.
    Comment: One commenter noted that some induction furnaces only tap 
about one-third of the molten metal, and are never fully emptied except 
to work on the EIF refractory. The commenter said that these furnaces 
can be sources of small quantities of emissions even when the unit is 
not melting so that the control system would need to operate 
continuously, even when the plant is not actively melting and that this 
makes it difficult to know what the actual emissions are in terms of 
tons of metal melted as some of the emissions are not directly related 
to production.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter. For periods when the 
furnace is idling, a suppression cover is all that is necessary to 
ensure emissions are not released from the furnace. The cover will also 
reduce heat losses from the furnace, reducing overall electricity costs 
(especially as compared to running the control system continuously). We 
acknowledge the difficulty in assessing the true emissions from these 
sources, which is why the long-term baghouse data were considered to be 
highly relevant in assessing the emission potential of EIFs.
2. Cost Impacts
    Comment: Sixteen commenters stated that EPA underestimated the 
costs of the capture and control equipment needed to retrofit an 
existing uncontrolled EIF with a control device. One commenter noted 
that some retrofits may require substantial furnace modifications, site 
preparation, and business interruption, the costs of which were not 
included in EPA's estimates. A third commenter stated that EPA had 
previously concluded that a retrofit cost factor of 2.8 was appropriate 
for an existing EIF. Another commenter explained that business 
interruption costs associated with a control system retrofit would 
directly impact the economic viability of the foundry.
    Ten of the commenters stated that EPA's cost estimates were 
understated because more EIFs than those identified by EPA will need to 
install controls to meet the proposed emission limits.
    One commenter stated that operating cost factors were supplied by 
individual companies and that the labor included overhead and bags were 
changed every 2 years. This commenter also stated that the current cost 
of capital equipment loans range from 7.5 to 9 percent, so annualizing 
costs using 7 percent understates the annual cost for the capital 
equipment.
    One commenter stated that the capital cost formula used by EPA is 
reasonably accurate if their furnaces can be modified to use a close 
capture system. If not, the commenter estimated that 250,000 actual 
cubic feet per meter (acfm) of gas would need to be collected (versus 
40,000 acfm), which would increase the size of the cost of the baghouse 
control system by nearly a factor of five. The commenter also stated 
that the operating cost formula used by EPA appeared to significantly 
underestimate the on-going costs. The commenter stated that EPA's 
estimate for melting 17,000 tpy production rate, operating costs of 
$72,600 per year would be estimated while the commenter estimates the 
cost for electricity and compressed air alone to be approximately 
$103,000 per year for the 40,000 acfm system. The commenter also noted 
that additional costs of heating make-up air (to keep from drawing cold 
air into the building) could increase operating costs by another 
$100,000 per year and maintenance costs were estimated to be $15,000 
per year. The commenter also noted that, based on the types of EIFs 
used at their foundry, the emission controls would have to run 24 hours 
a day, 365 days per year because the furnaces always have molten metal 
in them.
    Response: First, while we have revised the cost impacts, we 
consider that the control costs estimated for EIFs are likely to be 
biased high because we assume the EIFs that cannot meet the 0.8 lb/ton 
PM emission limit will install baghouse control devices. Other control 
systems, such as wet scrubbers or ESPs are expected to be able to meet 
the metal

[[Page 246]]

melting furnace emission limit for existing sources and typically at 
less total cost compared to baghouse control systems. For example, in 
reviewing the costs submitted by one of the commenters, the design 
performance of the baghouses was far greater than needed to comply with 
the proposed rule (designed to meet 0.0035 gr/dscf). Based on other 
commenters, EPA's estimate of the capital equipment cost for the 
baghouse system is not understated. Consequently, we did not revise the 
capital cost estimate for the baghouse system itself as we expect these 
capital cost estimates to already be conservatively high.
    We do note that there may be additional retrofit costs for those 
induction furnaces that do not have existing capture and control 
system, although we do not agree that a retrofit factor of 2.8 is 
warranted or appropriate. We increased the capital costs needed to 
install a capture system when one is not in place. At proposal, we 
estimated the cost of the capture system as 15 percent of the cost of 
the baghouse system. For this final rule, we estimated the cost of the 
capture system/furnace modification as 40 percent of the cost of the 
baghouse system. That is, for a baghouse system projected to cost $1 
million, capture system/furnace modifications were estimated to cost an 
additional $400,000. We also substantially increased the projected cost 
of testing the EIFs when no capture system is in place. For furnaces 
that already have a capture system (but no controls), then just costs 
of the baghouse system were attributed to the furnace.
    In addition, based on our review of the comments, we adjusted and 
increased the overall pressure drop through the system, which 
significantly increased the projected electricity costs. We also 
changed the frequency of bag replacement from 4 years to 2 years. 
Together with the additional capital costs, the control costs for EIFs 
increased compared to the estimates at proposal. However, we did not 
include the higher costs reported by some of the commenters, such as 
assuming bag replacement requiring a full-time person over a year to 
replace the bags or utilizing labor rates reported to include overhead, 
but then multiplying those rates by an overhead factor.
    We disagree with the commenter that the control costs were under-
estimated because more EIFs would need to be controlled than were 
estimated. Although the database used does not include every area 
source foundry in the country, we expect the existing database to 
include a very high majority of the larger area source foundries. 
Additionally, as noted in developing the emission impacts, we assumed 
that every EIF that was in the database required controls. As such, we 
believe that we overestimated the nationwide control costs because many 
existing EIFs are expected to meet the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit 
without installing additional controls. Furthermore, ``missing'' EIF 
from the database impact both emission reductions and costs, so that 
the overall cost-effectiveness projected for the rule will not be 
significantly impacted if some EIFs are ``missing'' from the database.
    Finally, we acknowledge that interest rates vary, but the 7 percent 
annual interest rate is our best estimate for long-term cost of 
capital.
3. Cost Effectiveness Impacts
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the emission limits for 
metal melting furnaces, and specifically for EIF, are not cost-
effective. One commenter stated that the cost per ton of PM or metal 
HAP emissions reduced is about four times higher than the EPA estimates 
due to the combination of EPA's overestimate of emission reductions and 
underestimate of emission control costs. Five commenters stated that 
EPA did not propose controls for pouring because the cost to control 
pouring ranged from $30,000 to $110,000 per ton of PM removed. The 
commenters said that because the commenters' cost-effectiveness for EIF 
controls are in this range, EPA should conclude that melting furnace 
controls are also not cost-effective. Another commenter recommended 
that EPA re-evaluate the need to control area source melting furnaces.
    Two commenters stated that, if the appropriate emission factors and 
compliance costs are used, the proposed rule is even less cost-
effective. One commenter compared the cost effectiveness of the 
proposed rule to the MACT standard for Industrial and Institutional 
Boilers and Process Heaters, which was approximately $33,000 per ton of 
HAP removed as further rationale demonstrating that the proposed rule 
is not cost-effective. Another commenter stated that, based on the cost 
estimate, the rule is not cost-effective. Using EPA's emission factor 
of 2 lbs/ton and assuming a PM emissions limit of 0.8 lbs/ton, the cost 
of controlling EIFs at his facility is approximately $30,000 to $50,000 
per ton of PM reduced, and these costs increase significantly if one 
uses the emission factor reported in AP-42. The commenter said that the 
requirement for EIF controls for new units appeared to be reasonable, 
but that the cost to control existing EIFs was unreasonable.
    Response: The commenters are mistaken--we did not reject emission 
controls for pouring on the basis of cost effectiveness. We stated 
clearly at proposal (72 FR 52987) that we were not regulating pouring 
at area source foundries for two reasons, and neither reason was cost 
effectiveness. We noted that the quantity of metal HAP in pouring 
emissions is very small relative to the emissions from melting 
furnaces. Further, we explained there are technical difficulties in the 
capture and control of pouring emissions because of the need to access 
the molten metal during the pouring process.
    We also disagree with the commenter's estimate of cost 
effectiveness of $30,000 to $50,000 per ton of PM for EIFs. We have re-
evaluated our cost estimates, and based on our revised analysis for the 
final rule, we estimate the cost effectiveness for PM as $13,000 per 
ton.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the GACT standard for EIFs was 
not as cost-effective and was more stringent than the MACT standard for 
EIFs. The commenter also noted that the MACT standard reduced metal HAP 
by 102 tpy compared to only 19 tpy for the GACT standard.
    Response: We developed the GACT standard for large area source 
foundries (including EIFs) by assessing the technologies and management 
practices that are generally available for large area source foundries. 
We selected a format of ``lb/ton'' as the most appropriate format for 
measuring emission control performance, and we concluded that 0.8 lb 
PM/ton of metal charged (or 0.06 lb total metal HAP/ton of metal 
charged), together with the pollution prevention management practices 
of the rule, represent GACT for this subcategory. In contrast, the MACT 
standard of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) was 
based on the emissions level achieved by the average of the top 12 
percent of major sources. We disagree that the GACT standard for EIFs 
(0.8 lb/ton) is more stringent than the MACT standard (0.005 gr/dscf). 
For example, for an EIF operating at 5 tons per hour (tph) and 14,600 
actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) of gas flow, the MACT standard is 
six times more stringent. For larger EIFs operating at 20 tph and 
36,800 acfm, the MACT standard is 10 times more stringent.
    In addition, one of the reasons the cost effectiveness estimates 
differ between the major source MACT standard and this rule is that the 
major source rule applies to larger foundries with greater economies of 
scale. That

[[Page 247]]

said, the HAP emission reductions achieved by the GACT standard that we 
are finalizing today are significant.
    Moreover, the commenter's comparisons of cost effectiveness and 
emission reductions between the major source MACT standard and the GACT 
standard at issue in this rule are not relevant. As we have explained 
previously, Congress expressly authorized EPA to issue alternative 
emission standards for area sources. Under section 112(d)(5), EPA can 
promulgate standards that provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices (GACT) for area sources 
listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). EPA has done precisely that in 
this case. The fundamental issue here is whether the GACT standard 
described above complies with the requirements of section 112(d)(5), 
and for all of the reasons described in this preamble and the docket in 
support of this final rule, the standard described above for large 
foundries represents GACT.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. There are approximately 83 
large area source foundries, and approximately two thirds of these 
foundries achieve the GACT level of control (0.8 lb/ton). We also 
examined options more stringent than 0.8 lb/ton and concluded the more 
stringent options were not GACT because of the increased cost, due 
primarily to the fact that a significant percentage of the foundries 
would have to retrofit or replace their existing emission control 
systems. (See 72 FR 52993, September 17, 2007.) As we explained in an 
earlier comment response, we re-evaluated the economic impacts of the 
rule as proposed and made appropriate changes to improve our cost 
estimates and reduce adverse economic impacts. For example, we 
estimated that three of the large area source foundries that might have 
to install additional controls under the rule as proposed would incur 
costs that were greater than 3 percent of revenues based on our revised 
analysis of impacts. To minimize economic impacts, we evaluated an 
alternative foundry size threshold of 20,000 tpy instead of 10,000 tpy 
and found that none of the 30 large area source foundries that might 
have to install controls would incur costs greater than 3 percent of 
revenues. We also concluded that a threshold of 20,000 tpy still 
resulted in significant emission reductions for metal HAP. In addition, 
only nine plants were estimated to incur costs that were over 1 percent 
of sales. Consequently, we revised the proposed rule to reduce economic 
impacts while maintaining significant emission reductions of HAP 
metals.
    The final GACT standard for large foundries will provide reductions 
of 13.2 tpy of compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, 
which are all ``Urban HAP'' for which this category was listed pursuant 
to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k). EPA listed these metal compounds as 
Urban HAP because of their significant adverse health effects. A large 
portion of the reductions of these Urban HAP will occur in the urban 
areas that EPA identified in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. 
See CAA 112(k)(3)(C).
    The primary HAP emitted from melting iron and steel scrap are 
manganese and lead with smaller levels of chromium and nickel. These 
metals (especially manganese) are inherent components of the scrap that 
is melted, and at the high temperatures used in the melting furnaces, 
the HAP metals are unavoidably vaporized and emitted. These metal HAP 
are present in the particulate matter emissions from the furnace, and 
because they are in particulate form, they can be captured and removed 
from the gas stream at high efficiency by control devices designed to 
capture PM (such as baghouses). The nature of these emissions and the 
HAP composition are unique to iron and steel melting furnaces and are 
quite different from the emissions from other processes and operations 
that do not involve melting metal scrap at high temperatures.
    There are adverse health effects associated with the metal HAP 
emitted from melting furnaces such as EIF. Hexavalent chromium and 
certain forms of nickel are known human carcinogens. Lead is toxic at 
low concentrations, and children are particularly sensitive to the 
chronic effects of lead. Chronic exposure to manganese affects the 
central nervous system. Additional details on the health and 
environmental effects of these HAP can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html.
 In addition, 75 percent of the emissions 

are in the form of fine particulate matter, and EPA studies have found 
that fine particles continue to be a significant source of health risks 
in many urban areas.
    In summary, the GACT standard for EIFs will reduce the emissions of 
urban metal HAP from area source foundries in urban areas, which will 
reduce the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. As 
discussed earlier, these reductions will be achieved by technology and 
management practices that are generally available at large area source 
foundries. Furthermore, we have incorporated into this final rule 
certain provisions of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) that afford sources additional flexibility. For example, existing 
sources can request an additional year to comply with the standard if 
they can demonstrate to the permitting authority that such additional 
time is needed to install controls. See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A). In 
addition, EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 112(l) provide 
further flexibility. Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provides 
that a State may seek approval of permit terms and conditions that 
differ from those specified in a section 112 rule, if the State can 
demonstrate that the terms and conditions of the permit are equivalent 
to the requirements of this rule. The procedures for seeking approval 
of such a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR 63.94.
4. Economic Impacts
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's economic impact assessment 
is deficient. The commenter stated that EPA defined this rule as a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, a 
definition that triggers specific requirements to provide economic 
impact analyses that include a statement of need for the proposed rule, 
examination of alternative approaches and analysis of social benefits 
and costs. The commenter stated that EPA has not met these requirements 
in a clear and comprehensive manner that allows for the evaluation of 
the regulatory costs and impacts. The commenter recommended that EPA 
provide a direct listing of the projected revenue and compliance costs 
for each foundry.
    Response: The proposed rule (and this final rule) was declared a 
``significant regulatory action'' by the Office of Management and 
Budget because it raised novel legal or policy issues. In the preamble 
to the proposed rule and supporting material in the docket, EPA met its 
obligations under section 6(a)(3)(B) of Executive Order 12866 to 
provide ``a reasonably detailed description of the need for the 
regulatory action and an explanation of how the regulatory action will 
meet that need'' as well as ``an assessment of the potential costs and 
benefits of the regulatory action''. Section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive 
Order 12866 imposes additional obligations on agencies for economically 
significant rules, but these additional obligations do not apply to 
this rule because it is not economically significant.

[[Page 248]]

    We consider that the level of analysis provided for the proposed 
and final rule is appropriate for this rulemaking. We relied on 
nationwide impact estimates for the proposed rule (instead of uncertain 
facility-specific analyses) and included the relevant analyses in the 
docket for public review at proposal (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0359-0007).
    A Monte Carlo analysis was used to assess the impacts for this 
final rule. This type of analysis provides an excellent means of 
determining the average nationwide impacts including average control 
cost estimates, average emission reductions, average number of 
foundries exceeding a set cost-to-revenue ratio, etc. The Monte Carlo 
analysis also provides a means to assess the uncertainty associated 
with these impacts. Although the Monte Carlo analysis provides 
meaningful nationwide impacts, it does not provide facility-specific 
impacts. We have included in the docket all relevant economic impacts 
analyses conducted for this final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA underestimated the economic 
impact because the compliance costs were underestimated. One commenter 
stated that his facility was a small foundry that exceeded the 10,000 
tpy threshold. The commenter stated that their revenue was 
approximately $5 to 6 million and the control equipment costs would 
exceed $1 million for their foundry, which would cause the facility to 
declare bankruptcy. Another commenter stated that the rule, as 
proposed, would likely cause their facility to close, resulting in a 
loss of jobs and exporting the business to countries that have little 
or no environmental regulations. Another commenter stated that the 
proposed rule would have a significant negative financial impact on 
their business and disagreed with the proposed rule requirements.
    Response: As described previously, after reviewing and revising 
both the emission and cost impact estimates, the impacts of the rule 
were re-evaluated. The number of existing foundries potentially 
impacted greater than 3 percent of revenues increased to three based on 
the revised analysis. Therefore, based on the revised impact analysis, 
we concluded that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for 
existing large foundries was not appropriate. We evaluated alternative 
standards using the revised impacts methodology and selected a 20,000 
tpy threshold for existing large foundries for this final rule. We 
estimate no foundries will be impacted greater than 3 percent of 
revenues at this higher production threshold.
    Comment: Six commenters recommended that the economic impacts be 
evaluated on the furnace level rather than on the foundry level. The 
commenters requested that EPA include only the revenue based on the 
portion of the metal produced from a particular furnace that is in need 
of additional controls. The commenters stated that this approach will 
reduce the revenue for many foundries and make it more likely that the 
cost-to-revenue ratio exceeds benchmark thresholds.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. The cost-to-revenue 
benchmark is typically evaluated at the entity level. For this 
analysis, we evaluated the impacts on the foundry level. It is possible 
that some entities operate several foundries. As such, we may have 
already overestimated the number of entities impacted greater than a 
given cost-to-revenue benchmark.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the cost-to-revenue ratio 
benchmark thresholds that EPA used are inappropriate for the foundry 
industry. The commenter provided data of the ``pre-tax profitability'' 
(defined by the commenter as income subject to tax divided by total 
business receipts) for foundries with assets less than $10 million 
averages only 1.02 percent, which is much less than the manufacturing 
industry as a whole. The commenter also stated that roughly 70 percent 
of foundries did not show a profit at all in 2002 and 2003. The 
commenter warned that recent reports indicating that profit margins of 
5.4 percent were realized by foundries in 2005 and 2006 were not 
statistically designed and were therefore biased toward more profitable 
firms. If EPA does consider these recent reports, the commenter urged 
EPA to use an average profitability over the past 5 years as a better 
indicator of the affordability of compliance costs. The commenter also 
stated that U.S. foundries cannot pass on price increases to the 
consumer due to international competition, citing a 2005 U.S. 
International Trade Commission (ITC) report.
    Eleven commenters stated that the rule would have an adverse 
economic impact on a significant number of foundries due to the 
industry's low profit margins and foreign competition. Six of these 
commenters also stated that the foundry industry has a common profit 
margin of approximately 2 percent so that impacts of 1 percent are 
significant to this industry.
    Response: First, most foundries with 10,000 tpy or more of metal 
charged have assets of $10 million so the 1 percent profit margin 
quoted by one of the commenters for these smaller foundries is really 
immaterial. It is the profit margin for the larger foundries that are 
relevant to the foundries that are materially impacted by this final 
rule. Profit margins generally increase with revenue, therefore, the 
profit margin for foundries greater than 20,000 tpy are likely well 
above the 2 percent values suggested by the commenters, so that impacts 
of 1 percent would not impose a significant adverse economic impact. 
Based on our revised analysis and the 20,000 tpy threshold, we expect 
there will be no foundries impacted greater than 3 percent of revenues, 
at most only one foundry may be impacted greater than 2 percent, and an 
average of nine foundries would be impacted greater than 1 percent. As 
such, we estimate that there will not be a significant adverse economic 
impact for a substantial number of iron and steel foundry area sources 
subject to this final rule.
    Comment: Six commenters stated that the capital investment costs of 
roughly $1 million will be incurred by many foundries, and that it will 
be difficult to secure financing for such a significant investment for 
a non-revenue-generating project. One of the commenters stated that the 
high capital investment that would be required by this rule is nearly 
three times the capital investment made in the plant (for income 
producing equipment) for all of 2007. The commenters recommended that 
EPA re-assess the economic impacts in light of their comments.
    Response: We appreciate the difficulty making investment in non-
income generating equipment, especially for small facilities. This was 
part of the consideration in selecting the higher 20,000 tpy threshold. 
However, we are required to establish area source standards based on 
our assessment of the industry and, for the reasons discussed in this 
preamble, we believe the control technologies and management practices 
described above represent GACT for the subcategories at issue in this 
final rule.

G. Miscellaneous

    Comment: One commenter stated that some of the references in Sec.  
63.10890 need correction. In Sec.  63.10892(c)(2), references are made 
to Sec.  63.10892(b)(2) and (3) which do not exist and in Sec.  
63.10890(d)(4), there is a reference to (b)(2) which does not exist.
    Response: We have revised the proposed rule to correct these 
citations.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA specify the document 
retention

[[Page 249]]

time for information not submitted to the agency.
    Response: We have revised the proposed recordkeeping requirements 
for small and large foundries to specify a 5-year period for record 
retention.

V. Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule

    We estimate that the final rule (using 20,000 tpy as the production 
capacity threshold for existing affected sources) will reduce emissions 
of HAP metal compounds by 13.7 tpy and will reduce PM emissions by 380 
tpy from the baseline. Additionally, the final standard is expected to 
reduce emissions of organic HAP by 32 tpy. The total capital cost of 
the final standard is estimated at $17 million. The annual operating, 
maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs of the 
final standard are estimated at $3.2 million per year. The total 
annualized cost of the final standard, including the annualized cost of 
capital equipment, is estimated at $4.8 million. Additional information 
on our impact estimates on the sources is available in the docket. (See 
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359.)
    The final standard is estimated to impact a total of 427 area 
source iron and steel foundries. When subcategorizing foundries by 
production thresholds, we estimate that 83 of these foundries are large 
iron and steel foundries and 344 foundries are small iron and steel 
foundries. Approximately 35 percent of the large iron and steel 
foundries are owned by small entities whereas 85 percent of the small 
iron and steel foundries are owned by small entities.
    The secondary impacts include solid waste generated as a result of 
the PM emissions collected and energy impacts associated with operation 
of control devices. At a 20,000 tpy production capacity threshold, we 
estimate that 440 tpy of solid waste will be generated and an 
additional 4,400 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy will 
be consumed each year as a result of the final standard.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may ``raise 
novel legal or policy issues.'' Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 
have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information requirements in this rule have been submitted for 
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 
collection request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 
ICR number 2267.02. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are 
based on the requirements in EPA's National Program for Mercury Switch 
Removal (a voluntary agreement with participating industries) and the 
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are 
mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
information (other than emissions data) submitted to EPA pursuant to 
the information collection requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) 
and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    All foundries are required to submit an initial notification that 
classifies their facility as a small or large foundry and a subsequent 
notification for any change in classification. All foundries also are 
required to maintain monthly production data to support their 
classification as a large or small foundry.
    The final NESHAP requires small area source foundries to submit an 
initial notification of applicability and a notification of compliance 
status according to the requirements in the General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A). Small area source foundries also must report any 
deviation from the pollution prevention management standards in the 
semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions. 
Large area source foundries are required to prepare and follow an O&M 
plan, conduct initial performance tests and follow-up tests every 5 
years, conduct control device inspections or monitor control device 
operating parameters, conduct opacity tests every 6 months for fugitive 
emissions, inspect and repair capture systems, and keep records to 
document compliance with the rule requirements. The owner or operator 
of an existing affected source is allowed to certify compliance with 
the emissions limits based on the results of prior performance tests 
that meet the rule requirements; the owner or operator must provide 
advance notification of the intent to use a prior performance test 
instead of conducting a new test. If compliance with the emissions 
limits for metal melting furnaces is demonstrated through emissions 
averaging, the owner or operator is required to demonstrate compliance 
for each calendar month using a calculation procedure in the rule. The 
owner or operator of a large foundry is subject to all requirements in 
the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) for startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
records and reports and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
40 CFR 63.10. The semiannual report must include summary information on 
excursions or exceedances, monitor downtime incidents, and deviations 
from management practices and operation and maintenance requirements.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 6,064 labor hours per 
year at a cost of $420,718 for the 427 area sources, with annualized 
capital costs of $8,490 and no O&M costs. No new area sources are 
estimated during the next 3 years. These estimates represent the 
maximum burden that would be imposed by the final standards (based on a 
subcategorization using an annual metal melt production threshold of 
20,000 tons for an existing affected source classified as a small 
foundry).
    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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the

[[Page 250]]

Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 
Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved 
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule 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-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities directly regulated by this final rule are iron and steel 
foundries that are area sources. We estimate that this rule will impact 
a total of 427 area source iron and steel foundries; 319 of these 
foundries are small entities based on employment. We estimate that 83 
of these foundries are large iron and steel foundries (metal melt 
production greater than 20,000 tpy), and 344 foundries are small iron 
and steel foundries (metal melt production of 20,000 tpy or less). 
Approximately 45 percent of the large iron and steel foundries are 
owned by small entities whereas 85 percent of the small iron and steel 
foundries are owned by small entities. Our analysis shows that small 
entity compliance costs, as assessed by the foundry's cost-to-sales 
ratio, are expected to range from 0.01 to 2.3 percent. The analysis 
also shows that of the 30 existing foundries owned by small entities 
subject to the requirements for large foundries (i.e., exceeding 20,000 
tpy melt production), no small entity will incur economic impacts 
exceeding 3 percent of its revenue and only one small entity will incur 
economic impacts exceeding 2 percent of its revenue.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. This final 
rule minimizes the impact on small entities by applying special 
provisions for small foundries that melt low quantities of metal (less 
than 20,000 tpy). Small iron and steel foundries are required to 
prepare and follow pollution prevention management practices for 
metallic scrap and binder formulations, submit one-time notifications, 
monitor their metal melting rate on a monthly basis, report deviations 
if they occur, and keep certain records. Although this final rule 
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not specifically 
aware of any new area sources being constructed now or planned in the 
next 3 years, and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new 
sources.

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 
1 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 cost-effective, 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 this final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. This final rule is not expected to impact 
State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this final rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA 
has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This 
final rule contains no requirements that apply to such governments, and 
imposes no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism'' (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'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. This final rule does not impose 
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments'' (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

[[Page 251]]

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule 
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes no requirements on 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not 
subject to the Executive Order because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, 
we have concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any 
adverse energy effects because energy requirements will not be 
significantly impacted by the additional pollution controls or other 
equipment that are required by this final rule.

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.
    This final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 
3B, 4, 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 9, 22, and 29 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 
and EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2, 
November 1994) (incorporated by reference-see Sec.  63.14).
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to the EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for 
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5B, 5D, 5F, 9, 22, 29, or 9095B. The 
search and review results are in the docket for this rule.
    One VCS was identified as applicable to this final rule. The 
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference-see Sec.  63.14) is cited in this final rule 
for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and CO 
content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 13 other 
VCS. EPA determined that these 13 standards identified for measuring 
emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in 
this final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for 
the purposes of this final rule. Therefore, EPA is not adopting these 
standards for this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 
13 methods are discussed in a memorandum in the docket for this final 
rule.
    For the methods required or referenced by this final rule, 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 40 CFR 63.7(f) 
and 40 CFR 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 this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The nationwide standards will reduce HAP emissions 
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected 
populations are exposed.

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. The EPA will submit a report containing this 
final rule 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 rule 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). This final rule will be effective on January 2, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

[[Page 252]]

    Dated: December 14, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (k)(1)(i) 
through (iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) 
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), Table 
5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, and Table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this 
part.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Method 0023A, ``Sampling Method for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran Emissions from Stationary 
Sources,'' dated December 1996, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1208(b)(1) of 
Subpart EEE of this part.
    (ii) Method 9071B, ``n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) for 
Sludge, Sediment, and Solid Samples,'' dated April 1998, IBR approved 
for Sec.  63.7824(e) of Subpart FFFFF of this part.
    (iii) Method 9095A, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' dated December 
1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.7700(b) and 63.7765 of Subpart 
EEEEE of this part.
    (iv) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2), 
dated November 2004, IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic 
liquids'' in Sec.  63.10692, Sec.  63.10885(a)(1), and the definition 
of ``Free liquids'' in Sec.  63.10906.
* * * * *

0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZZ to read as follows:

Subpart ZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.10880 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.10881 What are my compliance dates?

Pollution Prevention Management Practices for New and Existing Affected 
Sources

63.10885 What are my management practices for metallic scrap and 
mercury switches?
63.10886 What are my management practices for binder formulations?

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Small 
Foundries

63.10890 What are my management practices and compliance 
requirements?

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large 
Foundries

63.10895 What are my standards and management practices?
63.10896 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
63.10897 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.10898 What are my performance test requirements?
63.10899 What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
63.10900 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my large 
foundry?

Other Requirements and Information

63.10905 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.10906 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Performance Test Requirements for 
New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries

Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Establishment of Operating Limits 
for New Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries

Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large 
Foundries

Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Compliance Certifications for New 
and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries

Subpart ZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.10880  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron 
and steel foundry that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each iron and steel foundry.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source before September 17, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 17, 2007. 
If an affected source is not new pursuant to the preceding sentence, it 
is not new as a result of a change in its compliance obligations 
pursuant to Sec.  63.10881(d).
    (c) On and after January 2, 2008, if your iron and steel foundry 
becomes a major source as defined in Sec.  63.2, you must meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
    (e) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.
    (f) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
determine the initial applicability of the requirements of this subpart 
to a small foundry or a large foundry based on your facility's metal 
melt production for calendar year 2008. If the metal melt production 
for calendar year 2008 is 20,000 tons or less, your area source is a 
small foundry. If your metal melt production for calendar year 2008 is 
greater than 20,000 tons, your area source is a large foundry. You must 
submit a written notification to the Administrator that identifies your 
area source as a small foundry or a large foundry no later than January 
2, 2009.
    (g) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must determine 
the initial applicability of the requirements of this subpart to a 
small foundry or a large foundry based on your facility's annual metal 
melting capacity at startup. If the annual metal melting capacity is 
10,000 tons or less, your area source is a small foundry. If the annual 
metal melting capacity is greater than 10,000 tons, your area source is 
a large foundry. You must submit a written notification to the 
Administrator that identifies your area source as a small foundry or a 
large foundry no later than 120 days after startup.

[[Page 253]]

Sec.  63.10881  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by 
the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Not later than January 2, 2009 for the pollution prevention 
management practices for metallic scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a) and binder 
formulations in Sec.  63.10886.
    (2) Not later than January 4, 2010 for the pollution prevention 
management practices for mercury in Sec.  63.10885(b).
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, not later 
than 2 years after the date of your large foundry's notification of the 
initial determination required in Sec.  63.10880(f) for the standards 
and management practices in Sec.  63.10895.
    (b) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup 
date is on or before January 2, 2008, you must achieve compliance with 
the provisions of this subpart not later than January 2, 2008.
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the 
initial startup date is after January 2, 2008, you must achieve 
compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon startup of your 
affected source.
    (d) Following the initial determination for an existing affected 
source required in Sec.  63.10880(f),
    (1) Beginning January 1, 2010, if the annual metal melt production 
of your small foundry exceeds 20,000 tons during the preceding calendar 
year, you must submit a notification of foundry reclassification to the 
Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements in 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) If your small foundry has never been classified as a large 
foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no 
later than 2 years after the date of your foundry's notification that 
the annual metal melt production exceeded 20,000 tons.
    (ii) If your small foundry had previously been classified as a 
large foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a large 
foundry no later than the date of your foundry's most recent 
notification that the annual metal melt production exceeded 20,000 
tons.
    (2) If your facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or 
your small foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), you must 
comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years 
before reclassifying your facility as a small foundry, even if your 
annual metal melt production falls below 20,000 tons. After 3 years, 
you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided your 
annual metal melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 
tons or less. If you reclassify your large foundry as a small foundry, 
you must submit a notification of reclassification to the Administrator 
within 30 days and comply with the requirements for a small foundry no 
later than the date you notify the Administrator of the 
reclassification. If the annual metal melt production exceeds 20,000 
tons during a subsequent year, you must submit a notification of 
reclassification to the Administrator within 30 days and comply with 
the requirements for a large foundry no later than the date you notify 
the Administrator of the reclassification.
    (e) Following the initial determination for a new affected source 
required in Sec.  63.10880(g),
    (1) If you increase the annual metal melt capacity of your small 
foundry to exceed 10,000 tons, you must submit a notification of 
reclassification to the Administrator within 30 days and comply with 
the requirements for a large foundry no later than the startup date for 
the new equipment, if applicable, or the date of issuance for your 
revised State or Federal operating permit.
    (2) If your facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or 
your small foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), you must 
comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years 
before reclassifying your facility as a small foundry. After 3 years, 
you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided your most 
recent annual metal melt capacity is 10,000 tons or less. If you 
reclassify your large foundry as a small foundry, you must notify the 
Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements for a 
small foundry no later than the date your melting equipment was removed 
or taken out of service, if applicable, or the date of issuance for 
your revised State or Federal operating permit.

Pollution Prevention Management Practices for New and Existing Affected 
Sources

Sec.  63.10885  What are my management practices for metallic scrap and 
mercury switches?

    (a) Metallic scrap management program. For each segregated metallic 
scrap storage area, bin or pile, you must comply with the materials 
acquisition requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. 
You must keep a copy of the material specifications onsite and readily 
available to all personnel with material acquisition duties, and 
provide a copy to each of your scrap providers. You may have certain 
scrap subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and other scrap 
subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section at your facility provided 
the metallic scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
    (1) Restricted metallic scrap. You must prepare and operate at all 
times according to written material specifications for the purchase and 
use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do 
not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine 
blocks, post-consumer oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, 
chlorinated plastics, or free liquids. For the purpose of this subpart, 
``free liquids'' is defined as material that fails the paint filter 
test by EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test'' (revision 2), 
November 2004 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14). The 
requirements for no free liquids do not apply if the owner or operator 
can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted from scrap 
exposure to rain.
    (2) General iron and steel scrap. You must prepare and operate at 
all times according to written material specifications for the purchase 
and use of only iron and steel scrap that has been depleted (to the 
extent practicable) of organics and HAP metals in the charge materials 
used by the iron and steel foundry. The materials specifications must 
include at minimum the information specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, 
specifications for metallic scrap materials charged to a scrap 
preheater or metal melting furnace to be depleted (to the extent 
practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic 
parts, accessible lead-containing components (such as batteries and 
wheel weights), and a program to ensure the scrap materials are drained 
of free liquids.
    (ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is 
equipped with an afterburner, specifications for metallic scrap 
materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of 
chlorinated plastics, accessible lead-containing components (such as 
batteries and wheel weights), and a program to ensure the scrap 
materials are drained of free liquids.
    (b) Mercury requirements. For scrap containing motor vehicle scrap, 
you must procure the scrap pursuant to one of the compliance options in 
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each scrap provider, 
contract, or shipment.

[[Page 254]]

For scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap, you must procure 
the scrap pursuant to the requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You may have 
one scrap provider, contract, or shipment subject to one compliance 
provision and others subject to another compliance provision.
    (1) Site-specific plan for mercury switches. You must comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) You must include a requirement in your scrap specifications for 
removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap.
    (ii) You must prepare and operate according to a plan demonstrating 
how your facility will implement the scrap specification in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section for removal of mercury switches. You must 
submit the plan to the Administrator for approval. You must operate 
according to the plan as submitted during the review and approval 
process, operate according to the approved plan at all times after 
approval, and address any deficiency identified by the Administrator or 
delegated authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan. You 
may request approval to revise the plan and may operate according to 
the revised plan unless and until the revision is disapproved by the 
Administrator or delegated authority. The Administrator or delegated 
authority may change the approval status of the plan upon 90-days 
written notice based upon the semiannual report or other information. 
The plan must include:
    (A) A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap 
providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which 
mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper 
management of the mercury switches removed from the scrap as required 
under the rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The 
plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to 
communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to 
promote the removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon 
the request of the Administrator or delegated authority, you must 
provide examples of materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, 
such as letters, contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and 
scrap inspection protocols;
    (B) Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers motor 
vehicle scrap provided to the facility meet the scrap specification;
    (C) Provisions for periodic inspections or other means of 
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are 
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury 
switches in motor vehicle scrap and that the mercury switches removed 
are being properly managed, including the minimum frequency such means 
of corroboration will be implemented; and
    (D) Provisions for taking corrective actions (i.e., actions 
resulting in scrap providers removing a higher percentage of mercury 
switches or other mercury-containing components) if needed, based on 
the results of procedures implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of 
this section).
    (iii) You must require each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide 
an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor 
vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and the 
basis for the estimate. The Administrator may request documentation or 
additional information at any time.
    (iv) You must establish a goal for each scrap supplier to remove at 
least 80 percent of the mercury switches. Although a site-specific plan 
approved under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may require only the 
removal of convenience light switch mechanisms, the Administrator will 
credit all documented and verifiable mercury-containing components 
removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake 
systems, security systems, active ride control, and other applications) 
when evaluating progress towards the 80 percent goal.
    (v) For each scrap provider, you must submit semiannual progress 
reports to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury 
switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, 
the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent 
of mercury switches removed, and certification that the removed mercury 
switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise 
properly managed pursuant to RCRA subtitle C regulations referenced in 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. This information can be 
submitted in aggregate form and does not have to be submitted for each 
shipment. The Administrator may change the approval status of a site-
specific plan following 90-days notice based on the progress reports or 
other information.
    (2) Option for approved mercury programs. You must certify in your 
notification of compliance status that you participate in and purchase 
motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a 
program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the 
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. If you purchase motor vehicle scrap from a 
broker, you must certify that all scrap received from that broker was 
obtained from other scrap providers who participate in a program for 
the removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the 
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. The National Mercury Switch Recovery Program and 
the State of Maine Mercury Switch Removal Program are EPA-approved 
programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section unless and until the 
Administrator disapproves the program (in part or in whole) under 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) The program includes outreach that informs the dismantlers of 
the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and 
guidance for removing mercury switches;
    (ii) The program has a goal to remove at least 80 percent of 
mercury switches from motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider processes. 
Although a program approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this section may 
require only the removal of convenience light switch mechanisms, the 
Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable mercury-
containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors 
in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride control, 
and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the 80 percent 
goal; and
    (iii) The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the 
Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the 
number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered 
from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an 
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and 
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at 
facilities with permits as required under the rules implementing 
subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The progress 
reports must be based on a database that includes data for each program 
participant; however, data may be aggregated at the State level for 
progress reports that will be publicly available. The Administrator may 
change the approval status of a program or portion of a program (e.g., 
at the State level) following 90-days notice based on the progress 
reports or on other information.

[[Page 255]]

    (iv) You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the 
manner through which your facility is participating in the EPA-approved 
program.
    (A) The plan must include facility-specific implementation 
elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a 
trade association as appropriate for each facility.
    (B) You must provide in the plan documentation of direction to 
appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap 
supply chain the need to promote the removal or mercury switches from 
end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the Administrator or 
delegated authority, you must provide examples of materials that are 
used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, contract language, 
policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection protocols.
    (C) You must conduct periodic inspections or other means of 
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware of the need for 
and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of 
mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
    (3) Option for specialty metal scrap. You must certify in your 
notification of compliance status and maintain records of documentation 
that the only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap are materials 
recovered for their specialty alloy (including, but not limited to, 
chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys) content (such as certain 
exhaust systems) and, based on the nature of the scrap and purchase 
specifications, that the type of scrap is not reasonably expected to 
contain mercury switches.
    (4) Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. For scrap not 
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section, you must certify in your notification of compliance status and 
maintain records of documentation that this scrap does not contain 
motor vehicle scrap.

Sec.  63.10886  What are my management practices for binder 
formulations?

    For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line at a 
new or existing iron and steel foundry, you must use a binder chemical 
formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the 
catalyst formulation. This requirement does not apply to the resin 
portion of the binder system.

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Small 
Foundries

Sec.  63.10890  What are my management practices and compliance 
requirements?

    (a) You must comply with the pollution prevention management 
practices for metallic scrap and mercury switches in Sec.  63.10885 and 
binder formulations in Sec.  63.10886.
    (b) You must submit an initial notification of applicability 
according to Sec.  63.9(b)(2).
    (c) You must submit a notification of compliance status according 
to Sec.  63.9(h)(1)(i). You must send the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th day after the 
applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.10881. The 
notification must include the following compliance certifications, as 
applicable:
    (1) ``This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written 
material specifications for metallic scrap according to Sec.  
63.10885(a)(1)'' and/or ``This facility has prepared, and will operate 
by, written material specifications for general iron and steel scrap 
according to Sec.  63.10885(a)(2).''
    (2) ``This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written 
material specifications for the removal of mercury switches and a site-
specific plan implementing the material specifications according to 
Sec.  63.10885(b)(1) and/or ``This facility participates in and 
purchases motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate 
in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by 
the Administrator according to Sec.  63.10885(b)(2) and has prepared a 
plan for participation in the EPA-approved program according to Sec.  
63.10885(b)(2)(iv)'' and/or ``The only materials from motor vehicles in 
the scrap charged to a metal melting furnace at this facility are 
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content in accordance 
with Sec.  63.10885(b)(3) which are not reasonably expected to contain 
mercury switches'' and/or ``This facility complies with the 
requirements for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap in 
accordance with Sec.  63.10885(b)(4).''
    (3) ``This facility complies with the no methanol requirement for 
the catalyst portion of each binder chemical formulation for a furfuryl 
alcohol warm box mold or core making line according to Sec.  
63.10886.''
    (d) As required by Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of 
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the 
most recent 2 years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3 
years of data may be retained off site. Such files may be maintained on 
microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape 
disks, or on microfiche.
    (e) You must maintain records of the information specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (1) Records supporting your initial notification of applicability 
and your notification of compliance status according to Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of your written materials specifications according to 
Sec.  63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a)(1) and/
or for the use of general scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury 
in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as applicable. You must keep 
records documenting compliance with Sec.  63.10885(b)(4) for scrap that 
does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
    (3) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan 
for mercury switch removal under Sec.  63.10885(b)(1), you must:
    (i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or 
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, 
the estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the 
percent of mercury switches recovered; and
    (ii) Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches 
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and 
properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an 
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a 
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at 
RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a 
certification that you have conducted periodic inspections or taken 
other means of corroboration as required under Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must identify which option in paragraph 
Sec.  63.10885(b) applies to each scrap provider, contract, or 
shipment. You may include this information in the semiannual compliance 
reports required under paragraph (f) of this section.
    (4) If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs 
under Sec.  63.10885(b)(2), you must maintain records identifying each 
scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in an 
approved mercury switch removal program. If you purchase motor vehicle 
scrap from a broker, you must maintain records

[[Page 256]]

identifying each broker and documentation that all scrap provided by 
the broker was obtained from other scrap providers who participate in 
an approved mercury switch removal program.
    (5) Records to document use of binder chemical formulation that 
does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst 
formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line 
as required by Sec.  63.10886. These records must be the Material 
Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate information), 
a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer's hazardous air 
pollutant data sheet.
    (6) Records of the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-
containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds and 
cores. These records must be copies of purchasing records, Material 
Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provides information on 
the binder or coating materials used.
    (7) Records of metal melt production for each calendar year.
    (f) You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the 
Administrator according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(e). The 
report must clearly identify any deviation from the pollution 
prevention management practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 or 63.10886 and 
the corrective action taken.
    (g) You must submit a written notification to the Administrator of 
the initial classification of your facility as a small foundry as 
required in Sec.  63.10880(f) and (g), as applicable, and for any 
subsequent reclassification as required in Sec.  63.10881(d)(1) or (e), 
as applicable.
    (h) Following the initial determination for an existing affected 
source as a small foundry, if the annual metal melt production exceeds 
20,000 tons during the preceding year, you must comply with the 
requirements for large foundries by the applicable dates in Sec.  
63.10881(d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii). Following the initial determination 
for a new affected source as a small foundry, if you increase the 
annual metal melt capacity to exceed 10,000 tons, you must comply with 
the requirements for a large foundry by the applicable dates in Sec.  
63.10881(e)(1).
    (i) You must comply with the following requirements of the General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A): Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.5; 
Sec.  63.6(a), (b), (c), and (e)(1); Sec.  63.9; Sec.  63.10(a), 
(b)(1), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (f); and Sec. Sec.  
63.13 through 63.16. Requirements of the General Provisions not cited 
in the preceding sentence do not apply to the owner or operator of a 
new or existing affected source that is classified as a small foundry.

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large 
Iron and Steel Foundries

Sec.  63.10895  What are my standards and management practices?

    (a) If you own or operate an affected source that is a large 
foundry as defined in Sec.  63.10906, you must comply with the 
pollution prevention management practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 and 
63.10886, the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section, and the requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.10896 through 63.10900.
    (b) You must operate a capture and collection system for each metal 
melting furnace at a new or existing iron and steel foundry unless that 
furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part of an emissions averaging 
group. Each capture and collection system must meet accepted 
engineering standards, such as those published by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
    (c) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions from any 
metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that 
exceed the applicable limit in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. 
When an alternative emissions limit is provided for a given emissions 
source, you are not restricted in the selection of which applicable 
alternative emissions limit is used to demonstrate compliance.
    (1) For an existing iron and steel foundry, 0.8 pounds of 
particulate matter (PM) per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds of 
total metal HAP per ton of metal charged.
    (2) For a new iron and steel foundry, 0.1 pounds of PM per ton of 
metal charged or 0.008 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal 
charged.
    (d) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must comply 
with each control device parameter operating limit in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2) of this section that applies to you.
    (1) For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting 
furnace, you must maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test.
    (2) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a 
metal melting furnace, you must maintain the voltage and secondary 
current (or total power input) to the control device at or above the 
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
    (e) If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry, 
you must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive emissions 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 30 percent.

Sec.  63.10896  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for each control device 
for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP, or opacity 
emissions limit in Sec.  63.10895. You must maintain a copy of the O&M 
plan at the facility and make it available for review upon request. At 
a minimum, each plan must contain the following information:
    (1) General facility and contact information;
    (2) Positions responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and 
repairing emissions control devices which are used to comply with this 
subpart;
    (3) Description of items, equipment, and conditions that will be 
inspected, including an inspection schedule for the items, equipment, 
and conditions. For baghouses that are equipped with bag leak detection 
systems, the O&M plan must include the site-specific monitoring plan 
required in Sec.  63.10897(d)(2).
    (4) Identity and estimated quantity of the replacement parts that 
will be maintained in inventory; and
    (5) For a new affected source, procedures for operating and 
maintaining a CPMS in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
    (b) You may use any other O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar 
plan which addresses the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) through (5) 
of this section to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for an 
O&M plan.

Sec.  63.10897  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) You must conduct an initial inspection of each PM control 
device for a metal melting furnace at an existing affected source. You 
must conduct each initial inspection no later than 60 days after your 
applicable compliance date for each installed control device which has 
been operated within 60 days of the compliance date. For an installed 
control device which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance 
date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the 
control device. Following the initial inspections, you must perform 
periodic inspections and maintenance of each PM control device

[[Page 257]]

for a metal melting furnace at an existing affected source. You must 
perform the initial and periodic inspections according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. You must 
record the results of each initial and periodic inspection and any 
maintenance action in the logbook required in Sec.  63.10899(b)(13).
    (1) For the initial inspection of each baghouse, you must visually 
inspect the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks. You must also 
inspect the inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric 
filter condition. Following the initial inspections, you must inspect 
and maintain each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork for leaks.
    (ii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse 
for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric 
filter every 6 months.
    (2) For the initial inspection of each dry electrostatic 
precipitator, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic 
controls for corona power and rapper operation, that the corona wires 
are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper 
manifold. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and 
electrostatic housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the 
interior of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition 
and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, hopper, and air 
diffuser plates. Following the initial inspection, you must inspect and 
maintain each dry electrostatic precipitator according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper 
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper 
operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air 
pressure is present on the rapper manifold.
    (ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks.
    (iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the 
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of 
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air 
diffuser plates every 24 months.
    (3) For the initial inspection of each wet electrostatic 
precipitator, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic 
controls for corona power, that the corona wires are energized, and 
that water flow is present. You must also visually inspect the system 
ductwork and electrostatic precipitator housing unit and hopper for 
leaks and inspect the interior of the electrostatic precipitator to 
determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection 
plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and air diffuser plates. 
Following the initial inspection, you must inspect and maintain each 
wet electrostatic precipitator according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper 
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the 
corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present.
    (ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork, electrostatic precipitator housing unit, and hopper for 
leaks.
    (iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the 
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of 
corona wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and 
air diffuser plates every 24 months.
    (4) For the initial inspection of each wet scrubber, you must 
verify the presence of water flow to the scrubber. You must also 
visually inspect the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks and 
inspect the interior of the scrubber for structural integrity and the 
condition of the demister and spray nozzle. Following the initial 
inspection, you must inspect and maintain each wet scrubber according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of 
water flow to the scrubber.
    (ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks.
    (iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the scrubber 
to determine the structural integrity and condition of the demister and 
spray nozzle every 12 months.
    (b) For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting 
furnace at a new affected source, you must use a continuous parameter 
monitoring system (CPMS) to measure and record the 3-hour average 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate.
    (c) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a 
metal melting furnace at a new affected source, you must measure and 
record the hourly average voltage and secondary current (or total power 
input) using a CPMS.
    (d) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may 
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each 
negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse as an 
alternative to the baghouse inspection requirements in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section. If you own or operate a new affected source, you must 
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each 
negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse. You must 
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section.
    (i) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic 
foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall 
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using 
a strip chart recorder, data logger, or other means.
    (iii) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound 
when an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the 
alarm set point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and 
the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate 
plant personnel.
    (iv) The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist 
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity 
(range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the 
alarm set points. If the system is equipped with an alarm delay time 
feature, you also must adjust the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time. 
Except, once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag 
leak detection system to account for seasonable effects including 
temperature and humidity according to the procedures in the monitoring 
plan required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (vi) For negative pressure baghouses, induced air baghouses, and 
positive pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere 
through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed 
downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.

[[Page 258]]

    (vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system to be incorporated in your O&M plan. You must 
operate and maintain each bag leak detection system according to the 
plan at all times. Each plan must address all of the items identified 
in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (iv) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system including a 
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored.
    (vi) Procedures for determining what corrective actions are 
necessary in the event of a bag leak detection alarm as required in 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (3) In the event that a bag leak detection system alarm is 
triggered, you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause 
of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to 
correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and 
complete corrective action as soon as practicable, but no later than 10 
calendar days from the date of the alarm. You must record the date and 
time of each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the 
correction action taken, and the date on which corrective action was 
completed. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Inspecting the bag house for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse department.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (e) You must make monthly inspections of the equipment that is 
important to the performance of the total capture system (i.e., 
pressure sensors, dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must 
include observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g., 
presence of holes in the ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused 
by dents or accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion). You 
must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 90 days. You must record the date and 
results of each inspection and the date of repair of any defect or 
deficiency.
    (f) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS or other 
measurement device according to your O&M plan. You must record all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (g) In the event of an exceedance of an established emissions 
limitation (including an operating limit), you must restore operation 
of the emissions source (including the control device and associated 
capture system) to its normal or usual manner or operation as 
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The response shall include 
minimizing the period of any startup, shutdown or malfunction and 
taking any necessary corrective actions to restore normal operation and 
prevent the likely recurrence of the exceedance. You must record the 
date and time correction action was initiated, the correction action 
taken, and the date corrective action was completed.
    (h) If you choose to comply with an emissions limit in Sec.  
63.10895(c) using emissions averaging, you must calculate and record 
for each calendar month the pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of 
metal melted from the group of all metal melting furnaces at your 
foundry. You must calculate and record the weighted average pounds per 
ton emissions rate for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the 
foundry determined from the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.10898(d) and (e).

Sec.  63.10898  What are my performance test requirements?

    (a) You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the applicable emissions limits for each metal melting 
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that is subject to an 
emissions limit in Sec.  63.10895(c) and for each building or structure 
housing foundry operations that is subject to the opacity limit for 
fugitive emissions in Sec.  63.10895(e). You must conduct the test 
within 180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your 
notification of compliance status.
    (1) If you own or operate an existing iron and steel foundry, you 
may choose to submit the results of a prior performance test for PM or 
total metal HAP that demonstrates compliance with the applicable 
emissions limit for a metal melting furnace or group of all metal 
melting furnaces provided the test was conducted within the last 5 
years using the methods and procedures specified in this subpart and 
either no process changes have been made since the test, or you can 
demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
emissions limit despite such process changes.
    (2) If you own or operate an existing iron and steel foundry and 
you choose to submit the results of a prior performance test according 
to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must submit a written 
notification to the Administrator of your intent to use the previous 
test data no later than 60 days after your compliance date. The 
notification must contain a full copy of the performance test and 
contain information to demonstrate, if applicable, that either no 
process changes have been made since the test, or that the results of 
the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite such process changes.
    (3) If you have an electric induction furnace equipped with an 
emissions control device at an existing foundry, you may use the test 
results from another electric induction furnace to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limit in 
Sec.  63.10895(c) provided the furnaces are similar with respect to the 
type of emission control device that is used, the composition of the 
scrap charged, furnace size, and furnace melting temperature.
    (4) If you have an uncontrolled electric induction furnace at an 
existing foundry, you may use the test results from another electric 
induction furnace to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or 
total metal HAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.10895(c) provided the test 
results are prior to any control device and the electric induction 
furnaces are similar with respect to the composition of the scrap 
charged, furnace size, and furnace melting temperature.
    (5) For electric induction furnaces that do not have emission 
capture systems, you may install a temporary enclosure for the purpose 
of representative sampling of emissions. A

[[Page 259]]

permanent enclosure and capture system is not required for the purpose 
of the performance test.
    (b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limits 
in Sec.  63.10895(c) for a metal melting furnace or group of all metal 
melting furnaces no less frequently than every 5 years and each time 
you elect to change an operating limit or make a process change likely 
to increase HAP emissions.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), Table 1 to this subpart, and 
paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section.
    (d) To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal 
HAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.10895(c) for a metal melting furnace in 
a lb/ton of metal charged format, compute the process-weighted mass 
emissions (E\p\) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JA08.000

Where:

Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions rate of PM or total 
metal HAP, pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal 
charged;
C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP measured during 
performance test run, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry standard cubic feet per 
hour (dscf/hr);
T = Total time during a test run that a sample is withdrawn from the 
stack during melt production cycle, hr;
P = Total amount of metal charged during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound.

    (e) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit in 
Sec.  63.10895(c) for a group of all metal melting furnaces using 
emissions averaging,
    (1) Determine and record the monthly average charge rate for each 
metal melting furnace at your iron and steel foundry for the previous 
calendar month; and
    (2) Compute the mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP using Equation 
2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JA08.001

Where:

EC = The mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP emissions 
for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the foundry, pounds 
of PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal charged;
Epi = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM or total 
metal HAP for individual emission unit i as determined from the 
performance test and calculated using Equation 1 of this section, 
pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal charged;
Tti = Total tons of metal charged for individual emission 
unit i for the calendar month prior to the performance test, tons; 
and
n = The total number of metal melting furnaces at the iron and steel 
foundry.

    (3) For an uncontrolled electric induction furnace that is not 
equipped with a capture system and has not been previously tested for 
PM or total metal HAP, you may assume an emissions factor of 2 pounds 
per ton of PM or 0.13 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal melted 
in Equation 2 of this section instead of a measured test value. If the 
uncontrolled electric induction furnace is equipped with a capture 
system, you must use a measured test value.
    (f) To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal 
HAP emissions limit for a metal melting furnace in Sec.  63.10895(c) 
when emissions from one or more regulated furnaces are combined with 
other non-regulated emissions sources, you may demonstrate compliance 
using the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Determine the PM or total metal HAP process-weighted mass 
emissions for each of the regulated streams prior to the combination 
with other exhaust streams or control device.
    (2) 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 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JA08.002

Where:

Ei = Mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at the 
control device inlet, lb/hr;
Eo = Mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at the 
control device outlet, lb/hr.

    (3) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated PM 
or total metal HAP process-weighted mass emissions for the regulated 
emissions source using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JA08.003

Where:

Ep1released = Calculated process-weighted mass emissions 
of PM (or total metal HAP) predicted to be released to the 
atmosphere from the regulated emissions source, pounds of PM or 
total metal HAP per ton of metal charged; and
Ep1i = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM (or total 
metal HAP) in the uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, pounds of 
PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal charged.

    (g) 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 (d) through (f) of this section, you 
must submit a site-specific test plan to the Administrator for approval 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(c)(2) and (3).
    (h) You must conduct each opacity test for fugitive emissions 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6(h)(5) and Table 1 to this 
subpart.
    (i) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  63.10895(e) no less 
frequently than every 6 months and each time you make

[[Page 260]]

a process change likely to increase fugitive emissions.
    (j) In your performance test report, you must certify that the 
capture system operated normally during the performance test.
    (k) You must establish operating limits for a new affected source 
during the initial performance test according to the requirements in 
Table 2 of this subpart.
    (l) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber, 
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse if you meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your plan 
to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emissions limitation in Sec.  63.10895(c).
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in Table 2 to this subpart.

Sec.  63.10899  What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of 
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the 
most recent 2 years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3 
years of data may be retained off site. Such files may be maintained on 
microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape 
disks, or on microfiche.
    (b) In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, you must 
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(13) of this section.
    (1) You must keep records of your written materials specifications 
according to Sec.  63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance 
with the requirements for restricted metallic scrap in Sec.  
63.10885(a)(1) and/or for the use of general scrap in Sec.  
63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as 
applicable. You must keep records documenting compliance with Sec.  
63.10885(b)(4) for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
    (2) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan 
for mercury under Sec.  63.10885(b)(1), you must:
    (i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or 
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, 
the estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the 
percent of mercury switches recovered; and
    (ii) Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches 
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and 
properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an 
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a 
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at 
RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a 
certification that you have conducted periodic inspections or taken 
other means of corroboration as required under Sec.  
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must identify which option in Sec.  
63.10885(b) applies to each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You 
may include this information in the semiannual compliance reports 
required under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs 
under Sec.  63.10885(b)(2), you must maintain records identifying each 
scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in an 
approved mercury switch removal program. If your scrap provider is a 
broker, you must maintain records identifying each of the broker's 
scrap suppliers and documenting the scrap supplier's participation in 
an approved mercury switch removal program.
    (4) You must keep records to document use of any binder chemical 
formulation that does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of 
the catalyst formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or 
core making line as required by Sec.  63.10886. These records must be 
the Material Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate 
information), a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer's 
hazardous air pollutant data sheet.
    (5) You must keep records of the annual quantity and composition of 
each HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make 
molds and cores. These records must be copies of purchasing records, 
Material Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provide 
information on the binder or coating materials used.
    (6) You must keep records of monthly metal melt production for each 
calendar year.
    (7) You must keep a copy of the operation and maintenance plan as 
required by Sec.  63.10896(a) and records that demonstrate compliance 
with plan requirements.
    (8) If you use emissions averaging, you must keep records of the 
monthly metal melting rate for each furnace at your iron and steel 
foundry, and records of the calculated pounds of PM or total metal HAP 
per ton of metal melted for the group of all metal melting furnaces 
required by Sec.  63.10897(h).
    (9) If applicable, you must keep records for bag leak detection 
systems as follows:
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including 
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection 
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, 
and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the 
corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was 
completed.
    (10) You must keep records of capture system inspections and 
repairs as required by Sec.  63.10897(e).
    (11) You must keep records demonstrating conformance with your 
specifications for the operation of CPMS as required by Sec.  
63.10897(f).
    (12) You must keep records of corrective action(s) for exceedances 
and excursions as required by Sec.  63.10897(g).
    (13) You must record the results of each inspection and maintenance 
required by Sec.  63.10897(a) for PM control devices in a logbook 
(written or electronic format). You must keep the logbook onsite and 
make the logbook available to the Administrator upon request. You must 
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The date and time of each recorded action for a fabric filter, 
the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance 
performed on the bag filters.
    (ii) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet or dry 
electrostatic precipitator (including ductwork), the results of each 
inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed for the 
electrostatic precipitator.
    (iii) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet scrubber 
(including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results 
of any maintenance performed on the wet scrubber.
    (c) You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the 
Administrator according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(e). The 
reports must include, at a minimum, the following information as 
applicable:
    (1) Summary information on the number, duration, and cause 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, 
as

[[Page 261]]

applicable, and the corrective action taken;
    (2) Summary information on the number, duration, and cause 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor downtime incidents 
(other than downtime associated with zero and span or other calibration 
checks, if applicable); and
    (3) Summary information on any deviation from the pollution 
prevention management practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 and 63.10886 and 
the operation and maintenance requirements Sec.  63.10896 and the 
corrective action taken.
    (d) You must submit written notification to the Administrator of 
the initial classification of your new or existing affected source as a 
large iron and steel facility as required in Sec.  63.10880(f) and (g), 
as applicable, and for any subsequent reclassification as required in 
Sec.  63.10881(d) or (e), as applicable.

Sec.  63.10900  What parts of the General Provisions apply to my large 
foundry?

    (a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that is 
classified as a large foundry, you must comply with the requirements of 
the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) according to Table 3 
of this subpart.
    (b) If you own or operator a new or existing affected source that 
is classified as a large foundry, your notification of compliance 
status required by Sec.  63.9(h) must include each applicable 
certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, in Table 
4 of this subpart.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.10905  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a 
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated 
to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
40 CFR 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' under is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (6) Approval of a local, State, or national mercury switch removal 
program under Sec.  63.10885(b)(2).

Sec.  63.10906  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section.
    Annual metal melt capacity means the lower of the total metal 
melting furnace equipment melt rate capacity assuming 8,760 operating 
hours per year summed for all metal melting furnaces at the foundry or, 
if applicable, the maximum permitted metal melt production rate for the 
iron and steel foundry calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise 
specified in the permit, permitted metal melt production rates that are 
not specified on an annual basis must be annualized assuming 24 hours 
per day, 365 days per year of operation. If the permit limits the 
operating hours of the furnace(s) or foundry, then the permitted 
operating hours are used to annualize the maximum permitted metal melt 
production rate.
    Annual metal melt production means the quantity of metal melted in 
a metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces at the 
iron and steel foundry in a given calendar year. For the purposes of 
this subpart, metal melt production is determined on the basis on the 
quantity of metal charged to each metal melting furnace; the sum of the 
metal melt production for each furnace in a given calendar year is the 
annual metal melt production of the foundry.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light 
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously 
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Binder chemical means a component of a system of chemicals used to 
bind sand together into molds, mold sections, and cores through 
chemical reaction as opposed to pressure.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture 
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then 
convey the captured gas stream to a control device or to the 
atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the 
following components as applicable to a given capture system design: 
Duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, 
plenums, and fans.
    Chlorinated plastics means solid polymeric materials that contain 
chlorine in the polymer chain, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PVC 
copolymers.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by a 
metal melting furnace.
    Cupola means a vertical cylindrical shaft furnace that uses coke 
and forms of iron and steel such as scrap and foundry returns as the 
primary charge components and melts the iron and steel through 
combustion of the coke by a forced upward flow of heated air.
    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 including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation 
(including operating limits), management practice, 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 management standard in this subpart during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Electric arc furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron and 
steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted through resistance 
heating by an electric current flowing through the arcs formed between 
the electrodes and the surface of the metal and also flowing through 
the metal between the arc paths.
    Electric induction furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron 
and steel

[[Page 262]]

such as scrap and foundry returns are melted though resistance heating 
by an electric current that is induced in the metal by passing an 
alternating current through a coil surrounding the metal charge or 
surrounding a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the vessel.
    Exhaust stream means gases emitted from a process through a 
conveyance as defined in this subpart.
    Foundry operations mean all process equipment and practices used to 
produce metal castings for shipment. Foundry operations include: Mold 
or core making and coating; scrap handling and preheating; metal 
melting and inoculation; pouring, cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, 
grinding, and other metal finishing operations; and sand handling.
    Free liquids means material that fails the paint filter liquids 
test by EPA Method 9095B, Revision 2, November 1994 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14). That is, if any portion of the material 
passes through and drops from the filter within the 5-minute test 
period, the material contains free liquids.
    Fugitive emissions means any pollutant released to the atmosphere 
that is not discharged through a system of equipment that is 
specifically designed to capture pollutants at the source, convey them 
through ductwork, and exhaust them using forced ventilation. Fugitive 
emissions include pollutants released to the atmosphere through 
windows, doors, vents, or other building openings. Fugitive emissions 
also include pollutants released to the atmosphere through other 
general building ventilation or exhaust systems not specifically 
designed to capture pollutants at the source.
    Furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line means a mold or 
core making line in which the binder chemical system used is that 
system commonly designated as a furfuryl alcohol warm box system by the 
foundry industry.
    Iron and steel foundry means a facility or portion of a facility 
that melts scrap, ingot, and/or other forms of iron and/or steel and 
pours the resulting molten metal into molds to produce final or near 
final shape products for introduction into commerce. Research and 
development facilities, operations that only produce non-commercial 
castings, and operations associated with nonferrous metal production 
are not included in this definition.
    Large foundry means, for an existing affected source, an iron and 
steel foundry with an annual metal melt production greater than 20,000 
tons. For a new affected source, large foundry means an iron and steel 
foundry with an annual metal melt capacity greater than 10,000 tons.
    Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch 
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed 
in a vehicle.
    Metal charged means the quantity of scrap metal, pig iron, metal 
returns, alloy materials, and other solid forms of iron and steel 
placed into a metal melting furnace. Metal charged does not include the 
quantity of fluxing agents or, in the case of a cupola, the quantity of 
coke that is placed into the metal melting furnace.
    Metal melting furnace means a cupola, electric arc furnace, 
electric induction furnace, or similar device that converts scrap, 
foundry returns, and/or other solid forms of iron and/or steel to a 
liquid state. This definition does not include a holding furnace, an 
argon oxygen decarburization vessel, or ladle that receives molten 
metal from a metal melting furnace, to which metal ingots or other 
material may be added to adjust the metal chemistry.
    Mold or core making line means the collection of equipment that is 
used to mix an aggregate of sand and binder chemicals, form the 
aggregate into final shape, and harden the formed aggregate. This 
definition does not include a line for making greensand molds or cores.
    Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and 
usually is operated with rubber tires for use on highways.
    Motor vehicle scrap means vehicle or automobile bodies, including 
automobile body hulks, that have been processed through a shredder. 
Motor vehicle scrap does not include automobile manufacturing bundles, 
or miscellaneous vehicle parts, such as wheels, bumpers, or other 
components that do not contain mercury switches.
    Nonferrous metal means any pure metal other than iron or any metal 
alloy for which an element other than iron is its major constituent in 
percent by weight.
    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.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    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.
    Scrap provider means the person (including a broker) who contracts 
directly with an iron and steel foundry to provide motor vehicle scrap. 
Scrap processors such as shredder operators or vehicle dismantlers that 
do not sell scrap directly to a foundry are not scrap providers.
    Scrubber blowdown means liquor or slurry discharged from a wet 
scrubber that is either removed as a waste stream or processed to 
remove impurities or adjust its composition or pH.
    Small foundry means, for an existing affected source, an iron and 
steel foundry that has an annual metal melt production of 20,000 tons 
or less. For a new affected source, small foundry means an iron and 
steel foundry that has an annual metal melt capacity of 10,000 tons or 
less.
    Total metal HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of 
the concentrations of compounds 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-8). 
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 one-half 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.

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63

[[Page 263]]

 Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
     New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries
[As required in Sec.   63.10898(c) and (h), you must conduct performance
   tests according to the test methods and procedures in the following
                                 table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
          For. . .                You must. . .           following
                                                      requirements. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each metal melting         a. Select sampling    Sampling sites must
 furnace subject to a PM or    port locations and    be located at the
 total metal HAP limit in      the number of         outlet of the
 Sec.   63.10895(c).           traverse points in    control device (or
                               each stack or duct    at the outlet of
                               using EPA Method 1    the emissions
                               or 1A (40 CFR part    source if no
                               60, appendix A).      control device is
                              b. Determine           present) prior to
                               volumetric flow       any releases to the
                               rate of the stack     atmosphere.
                               gas using Method 2,  i. Collect a minimum
                               2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or    sample volume of 60
                               2G (40 CFR part 60,   dscf of gas during
                               appendix A).          each PM sampling
                              c. Determine dry       run. The PM
                               molecular weight of   concentration is
                               the stack gas using   determined using
                               EPA Method 3, 3A,     only the front-half
                               or 3B (40 CFR part    (probe rinse and
                               60, appendix A).\1\.  filter) of the PM
                              d. Measure moisture    catch.
                               content of the       ii. For Method 29,
                               stack gas using EPA   only the measured
                               Method 4 (40 CFR      concentration of
                               part 60, appendix     the listed metal
                               A).                   HAP analytes that
                              e. Determine PM        are present at
                               concentration using   concentrations
                               EPA Method 5, 5B,     exceeding one-half
                               5D, 5F, or 5I, as     the quantification
                               applicable or total   limit of the
                               metal HAP             analytical method
                               concentration using   are to be used in
                               EPA Method 29 (40     the sum. If any of
                               CFR part 60,          the analytes are
                               appendix A).          not detected or are
                                                     detected at
                                                     concentrations less
                                                     than one-half 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.
                                                    iii. A minimum of
                                                     three valid test
                                                     runs are needed to
                                                     comprise a PM or
                                                     total metal HAP
                                                     performance test.
                                                    iv. For cupola metal
                                                     melting furnaces,
                                                     sample PM or total
                                                     metal HAP only
                                                     during times when
                                                     the cupola is on
                                                     blast.
                                                    v. For electric arc
                                                     and electric
                                                     induction metal
                                                     melting furnaces,
                                                     sample PM or total
                                                     metal HAP only
                                                     during normal melt
                                                     production
                                                     conditions, which
                                                     may include, but
                                                     are not limited to
                                                     the following
                                                     operations:
                                                     Charging, melting,
                                                     alloying, refining,
                                                     slagging, and
                                                     tapping.
                                                    vi. Determine and
                                                     record the total
                                                     combined weight of
                                                     tons of metal
                                                     charged during the
                                                     duration of each
                                                     test run. You must
                                                     compute the process-
                                                     weighted mass
                                                     emissions of PM
                                                     according to
                                                     Equation 1 of Sec.
                                                      63.10898(d) for an
                                                     individual furnace
                                                     or Equation 2 of
                                                     Sec.   63.10898(e)
                                                     for the group of
                                                     all metal melting
                                                     furnaces at the
                                                     foundry.
2. Fugitive emissions from    a. Using a certified  i. The certified
 buildings or structures       observer, conduct     observer may
 housing any iron and steel    each opacity test     identify a limited
 foundry emissions sources     according to EPA      number of openings
 subject to opacity limit in   Method 9 (40 CFR      or vents that
 Sec.   63.10895(e).           part 60, appendix A-  appear to have the
                               4) and 40 CFR         highest opacities
                               63.6(h)(5).           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.
                                                    ii. During testing
                                                     intervals when PM
                                                     or total metal HAP
                                                     performance tests,
                                                     if applicable, are
                                                     being conducted,
                                                     conduct the opacity
                                                     test such that the
                                                     opacity
                                                     observations are
                                                     recorded during the
                                                     PM or total metal
                                                     HAP performance
                                                     tests.

[[Page 264]]

                              b. As alternative to  i. The observer may
                               Method 9              identify a limited
                               performance test,     number of openings
                               conduct visible       or vents that
                               emissions test by     appear to have the
                               Method 22 (40 CFR     highest visible
                               part 60, appendix A-  emissions and
                               7). The test is       perform
                               successful if no      observations on the
                               visible emissions     identified openings
                               are observed for 90   or vents in lieu of
                               percent of the        performing
                               readings over 1       observations for
                               hour. If VE is        each opening or
                               observed greater      vent from the
                               than 10 percent of    building or
                               the time over 1       structure.
                               hour, then the        Alternatively, a
                               facility must         single observation
                               conduct another       for the entire
                               performance test as   building or
                               soon as possible,     structure may be
                               but no later than     performed, if the
                               15 calendar days      fugitive release
                               after the Method 22   points afford such
                               test, using Method    an observation.
                               9 (40 CFR part 60,   ii. During testing
                               appendix A-4).        intervals when PM
                                                     or total metal HAP
                                                     performance tests,
                                                     if applicable, are
                                                     being conducted,
                                                     conduct the visible
                                                     emissions test such
                                                     that the
                                                     observations are
                                                     recorded during the
                                                     PM or total metal
                                                     HAP performance
                                                     tests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also use as an alternative to EPA Method 3B (40 CFR part 60,
  appendix A), the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon
  dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME PTC
  19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
  reference--see Sec.   63.14).

    Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Procedures for Establishing
 Operating Limits for New Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries
 [As required in Sec.   63.10898(k), you must establish operating limits
              using the procedures in the following table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each wet scrubber subject   Using the CPMS required in Sec.
 to the operating limits in     63.10897(b), measure and record the
 Sec.   63.10895(d)(1) for      pressure drop and scrubber water flow
 pressure drop and scrubber     rate in intervals of no more than 15
 water flow rate.               minutes during each PM or total metal
                                HAP test run. Compute and record the
                                average pressure drop and average
                                scrubber water flow rate for all the
                                valid sampling runs in which the
                                applicable emissions limit is met.
2. Each electrostatic          Using the CPMS required in Sec.
 precipitator subject to        63.10897(c), measure and record voltage
 operating limits in Sec.       and secondary current (or total power
 63.10895(d)(2) for voltage     input) in intervals of no more than 15
 and secondary current (or      minutes during each PM or total metal
 total power input).            HAP test run. Compute and record the
                                minimum hourly average voltage and
                                secondary current (or total power input)
                                from all the readings for each valid
                                sampling run in which the applicable
                                emissions limit is met.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to New and Existing Affected Sources
                                          Classified as Large Foundries
 [As required in Sec.   63.10900(a), you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to large
              Citation                        Subject                  foundry?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................  Applicability..........  Yes.
63.2................................  Definitions............  Yes.
63.3................................  Units and abbreviations  Yes.
63.4................................  Prohibited activities..  Yes.
63.5................................  Construction/            Yes.
                                       reconstruction.
63.6(a)-(g).........................  Compliance with          Yes.
                                       standards and
                                       maintenance
                                       requirements.
63.6(h).............................  Opacity and visible      Yes.
                                       emissions standards.
63.6(i)(i)-(j)......................  Compliance extension     Yes.
                                       and Presidential
                                       compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h).................  Performance testing      Yes.
                                       requirements.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2)...................  Applicability and        No                        Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
                                       performance test dates.                            applicability and
                                                                                          performance test
                                                                                          dates.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)-       Monitoring requirements  Yes.
 (c)(3), (c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e),
 (f)(1)-(f)(6), (g)(1)-(g)(4).
63.8(a)(4)..........................  Additional monitoring    No.
                                       requirements for
                                       control devices in
                                       Sec.   63.11.
63.8(c)(4)..........................  Continuous monitoring    No.
                                       system (CMS)
                                       requirements.
63.8(c)(5)..........................  Continuous opacity       No.
                                       monitoring system
                                       (COMS) minimum
                                       procedures.
63.8(g)(5)..........................  Data reduction.........  No.

[[Page 265]]

63.9................................  Notification             Yes.
                                       requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii) -        Recordkeeping and        Yes.
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1)-(2),      reporting requirements.
 (e)(1)-(2), (f).
63.10(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15)........  Additional records for   No.
                                       continuous monitoring
                                       systems.
63.10(c)(7)-(8).....................  Records of excess        Yes.
                                       emissions and
                                       parameter monitoring
                                       exceedances for CMS.
63.10(d)(3).........................  Reporting opacity or     Yes.
                                       visible emissions
                                       observations.
63.10(e)(3).........................  Excess emissions         Yes.
                                       reports.
63.10(e)(4).........................  Reporting COMS data....  No.
63.11...............................  Control device           No.
                                       requirements.
63.12...............................  State authority and      Yes.
                                       delegations.
63.13-63.16.........................  Addresses of State air   Yes.
                                       pollution control
                                       agencies and EPA
                                       regional offices.
                                       Incorporation by
                                       reference.
                                       Availability of
                                       information and
                                       confidentiality.
                                       Performance track
                                       provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Compliance Certifications for New
    and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Iron and Steel
                                Foundries
   [As required by Sec.   63.10900(b), your notification of compliance
    status must include certifications of compliance according to the
                            following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Your notification of compliance status
                                required by Sec.   63.9(h) must include
           For. . .             this certification of compliance, signed
                                       by a responsible official:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each new or existing affected  ``This facility has prepared, and will
 source classified as a large   operate by, written material
 foundry and subject to scrap   specifications for metallic scrap
 management requirements in     according to Sec.   63.10885(a)(1)'' and/
 Sec.   63.10885(a)(1) and/or   or ``This facility has prepared, and
 (2).                           will operate by, written material
                                specifications for general iron and
                                steel scrap according to Sec.
                                63.10885(a)(2).''
Each new or existing affected  ``This facility has prepared, and will
 source classified as a large   operate by, written material
 foundry and subject to         specifications for the removal of
 mercury switch removal         mercury switches and a site-specific
 requirements in Sec.           plan implementing the material
 63.10885(b).                   specifications according to Sec.
                                63.10885(b)(1)'' and/or ``This facility
                                participates in and purchases motor
                                vehicles scrap only from scrap providers
                                who participate in a program for removal
                                of mercury switches that has been
                                approved by the EPA Administrator
                                according to Sec.   63.10885(b)(2) and
                                have prepared a plan for participation
                                in the EPA approved program according to
                                Sec.   63.10885(b)(2)(iv)'' and/or ``The
                                only materials from motor vehicles in
                                the scrap charged to a metal melting
                                furnace at this facility are materials
                                recovered for their specialty alloy
                                content in accordance with Sec.
                                63.10885(b)(3) which are not reasonably
                                expected to contain mercury switches''
                                and/or ``This facility complies with the
                                requirements for scrap that does not
                                contain motor vehicle scrap in
                                accordance with Sec.   63.10885(b)(4).''
Each new or existing affected  ``This facility complies with the no
 source classified as a large   methanol requirement for the catalyst
 foundry and subject to Sec.    portion of each binder chemical
  63.10886.                     formulation for a furfuryl alcohol warm
                                box mold or core making line according
                                to Sec.   63.10886.''
Each new or existing affected  ``This facility operates a capture and
 source classified as a large   collection system for each emissions
 foundry and subject to Sec.    source subject to this subpart according
  63.10895(b).                  to Sec.   63.10895(b).''
Each existing affected source  ``This facility complies with the PM or
 classified as a large          total metal HAP emissions limit in Sec.
 foundry and subject to Sec.     63.10895(c) for each metal melting
  63.10895(c)(1).               furnace or group of all metal melting
                                furnaces based on a previous performance
                                test in accordance with Sec.
                                63.10898(a)(1).''
Each new or existing affected  ``This facility has prepared and will
 source classified as a large   operate by an operation and maintenance
 foundry and subject to Sec.    plan according to Sec.   63.10896(a).''
  63.10896(a).
Each new or existing (if       ``This facility has prepared and will
 applicable) affected source    operate by a site-specific monitoring
 classified as a large          plan for each bag leak detection system
 foundry and subject to Sec.    and submitted the plan to the
  63.10897(d).                  Administrator for approval according to
                                Sec.   63.10897(d)(2).''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-24836 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P