Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359-0089
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-01-02T05:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 6560-50-P

	

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-        ]

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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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

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: 

Category	NAICS code1	Examples of regulated entities

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

	331512	Steel investment foundries.

	331513	Steel foundries (except investment).

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:      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/"  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ .  The
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.

C.  Judicial Review

	Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of
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 [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  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, 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.  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.  

	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 [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  A large existing foundry
must comply with applicable emissions limitations and operation and
maintenance requirements no later than 2 years after initial
classification.

	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 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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] 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 mercury switches that has been
approved by the Administrator.  The NVMSRP 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.    

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 [INSERT
DATE 120 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] (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 [INSERT
DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Subsequent
notifications are required within 30 days for a change in 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 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 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. 

	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
§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 §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
§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 loop hole 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 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 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) website
(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 NMVSRP.  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 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 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, §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 §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
§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 provide sufficient time for the
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under §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
§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
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
§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 §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 §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 NMVSRP 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 motor vehicle scrap
according to the requirements in §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,
thermometers, 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 NVSMRP 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 switch 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.

	Another commenter said that the requirements in
§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 §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 §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 §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 §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
§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 §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
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
§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 §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 §63.10895(a) requires “each”
melting furnace to operate a capture system, but §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 §63.10895(a) of
the proposed rule and §63.10895(b) of the 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 associate 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
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 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
are unnecessary and that semiannual 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-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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html" 
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 and EIFs, could significantly
reduce capture efficiency.  The commenter recommended that EPA include
capture system in the inspections required for control systems. 
Specifically, §63.10985(a) be revised to require “... Each capture
and collection system must meet and maintain…”; §63.10896(a) be
revised to require an O&M plan “.. for each capture and control
device…”; add a paragraph §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
§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 §63.10897(c)(8) are not needed
as inspection requirements for the capture system are already specified
in §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 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 on-going 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 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 §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 §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 §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 cHAPhh

ommenter 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 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 primary 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 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 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 device.  Other control systems, such
as wet scrubbers or ESPs are expected to be able to meet the metal
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 were 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 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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html" 
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.

	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 2005 US 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
§63.10890 need correction.  In §63.10892(c)(2), references are made to
§63.10892(b)(2) and (3) which do not exist and in §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 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 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 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 (Public Law No. 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 §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 §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 [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

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

				

Dated:

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

	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]

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

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

Subpart A—-[AMENDED]

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

§63.14  Incorporations by reference.

*   *   *   *   *

	(i)  *  *  *

	(1)  ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for
§§63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii),
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3),
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2),
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii)
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 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 §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
§63.7824(e) of Subpart FFFFF of this part.

	(iii)  Method 9095A, “Paint Filter Liquids Test,” dated December
1996, IBR approved for §§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 §63.10692, §63.10885(a)(1), and the definition of
“Free liquids” in §63.10906.

*   *   *   *   *

	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

§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 §63.10881(d).

	(c)	On and after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
if your iron and steel foundry becomes a major source as defined in
§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 [INSERT
DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(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.    

§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 [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for the pollution prevention management practices
for metallic scrap in §63.10885(a) and binder formulations in
§63.10886.

	(2)  Not later than [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for the pollution prevention management practices
for mercury in §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 §63.10880(f) for the standards and
management practices in §63.10895.

	(b)	If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup
date is on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart not later than [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

	(c)	If you own or operate a new affected source for which the initial
startup date is after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], 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 §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 §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 

§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 §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.  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.

	(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.

§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

§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 §63.10885 and binder
formulations in §63.10886.

	(b)  You must submit an initial notification of applicability according
to §63.9(b)(2).

	(c)  You must submit a notification of compliance status according to
§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 §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
§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 §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
§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
Administrator according §63.10885(b)(2) and has prepared a plan for
participation in the EPA-approved program according to
§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
§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
§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 §63.10886.”

	(d)  As required by §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 §63.10(b)(1).

 	(1)  Records supporting your initial notification of applicability and
your notification of compliance status according to §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

	(2)  Records of your written materials specifications according to
§63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in §63.10885(a)(1) and/or
for the use of general scrap in §63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury in
§63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as applicable.  You must keep records
documenting compliance with §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 §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 §63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). 
You must identify which option in paragraph §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 §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 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 §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 provide 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 §63.10(e).  The report must clearly
identify any deviation from the pollution prevention management
practices in §§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 §63.10880(f) and (g), as applicable, and for any subsequent
reclassification as required in §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
§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
§63.10881(e)(1).

	(i)  You must comply with the following requirements of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A):  §§63.1 through 63.5;
§63.6(a), (b), (c), and (e)(1); §63.9; §63.10(a), (b)(1),
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (f); and §§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

§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 §63.10906, you must comply with the pollution prevention
management practices in §§63.10885 and 63.10886, the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, and the requirements in
§§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.

§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 §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 §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. 

§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 you
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 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 §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.

	(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 §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 §63.10898(d)
and (e).

§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 §63.10895(c) and for each building or structure
housing foundry operations that is subject to the opacity limit for
fugitive emissions in §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
§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 §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 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
§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 §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 §63.10895(c) for a metal melting furnace in a lb/ton
of metal charged format, compute the process-weighted mass emissions
(Ep) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:

                     (Eq. 1)

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
§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.

 			(Eq. 2)

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 §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.

           (Eq. 3)

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: 

              (Eq. 4)

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 §63.7(c)(2) and (3).

	(h)  You must conduct each opacity test for fugitive emissions
according to the requirements in §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 §63.10895(e) no less frequently
than every 6 months and each time you make 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 §63.10895(c).

	(3)  Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in Table 2 to this subpart. 

§63.10899  What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

	(a)  As required by §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 §63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with
the requirements for restricted metallic scrap in §63.10885(a)(1)
and/or for the use of general scrap in §63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury
in §63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as applicable.  You must keep records
documenting compliance with §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 §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 §63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). 
You must identify which option in §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 §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 §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 §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 §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 §63.10897(e).

	(11)  You must keep records demonstrating conformance with your
specifications for the operation of CPMS as required by §63.10897(f).

 	(12)  You must keep records of corrective action(s) for exceedances
and excursions as required by §63.10897(g).

	(13)  You must record the results of each inspection and maintenance
required by §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 §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
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 §§63.10885 and 63.10886 and the operation and
maintenance requirements §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 §63.10880(f) and (g), as
applicable, and for any subsequent reclassification as required in
§63.10881(d) or (e), as applicable.

§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 §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

§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
§63.6(h)(9).

	(3)  Approval of a major change to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii)
and (f).  A “major change to test method” is defined in §63.90.

	(4)  Approval of a major change to monitoring under §63.8(f).  A
“major change to monitoring” under is defined in §63.90.

	(5)  Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
§63.10(f).  A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined
in §63.90.

	(6)  Approval of a local, State, or national mercury switch removal
program under §63.10885(b)(2).

§63.10906  What definitions apply to this subpart?

   Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
§63.2, and in this section.

	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 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 §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.

	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.

	Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch assembly
that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed in a
vehicle.	

	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 green sand 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 §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

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

	As required in §63.10898(c) and (h), you must conduct performance
tests according to the test methods and procedures in the following
table.

For. . .	You must . . .	According to the following requirements . . .

1. Each metal melting furnace subject to a PM or total metal HAP limit
in §63.10895(c).	a. Select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points in each stack or duct using EPA Method 1 or 1A  (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A).	Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of
the control device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no
control device is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

	b. Determine volumetric flow rate of the stack gas using Method 2, 2A,
2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

c. Determine dry molecular weight of the stack gas using EPA Method 3,
3A, or 3B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).1  

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas using EPA Method 4 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A).

e. Determine PM concentration using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as
applicable or total metal HAP concentration using EPA Method 29 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A).	i. Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of
gas during each PM sampling run. The PM concentration is determined
using only the front-half (probe rinse and filter) of the PM catch.    

ii. For Method 29, only the measured concentration of the listed metal
HAP analytes that are present at concentrations exceeding one-half the
quantification 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 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
§63.10898(d) for an individual furnace or Equation 2 of §63.10898(e)
for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the foundry.

2. Fugitive emissions from buildings or structures housing any iron and
steel foundry emissions sources subject to opacity limit in
§63.10895(e).  	Using a certified observer, conduct each opacity test
according to EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(5).	i. The certified observer may identify a limited number of
openings or vents that appear to have the highest opacities and perform
opacity observations on the identified openings or vents in lieu of
performing observations for each opening or vent from the building or
structure.  Alternatively, a single opacity observation for the entire
building or structure may be performed, if the fugitive release points
afford such an observation.

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.

	As alternative to Method 9 performance test, conduct visible emissions
test by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).  The test is
successful if no visible emissions are observed for 90 percent of the
readings over 1 hour.  If VE is observed greater than 10 percent of the
time over 1 hour, then the facility must conduct another performance
test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the
Method 22 test, using Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).	i. The
observer may identify a limited number of openings or vents that appear
to have the highest visible emissions and perform 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
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 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
§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 §63.10898(k), you must establish operating limits using
the procedures in the following table.

For . . .	You must . . .

1. Each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in §63.10895(d)(1)
for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate. 	Using the CPMS required
in §63.10897(b), measure and record the pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate in intervals of no more than 15 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 precipitator subject to operating limits in
§63.10895(d)(2) for voltage and secondary current (or total power
input).	Using the CPMS required in §63.10897(c), measure and record
voltage and secondary current (or total power input) in intervals of no
more than 15 minutes during each PM or total metal 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 §63.10900(a), you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to you.

Citation	Subject	Applies to large foundry?	Explanation

63.1	Applicability	Yes.

	63.2	Definitions	Yes.

	63.3	Units and abbreviations	Yes.

	63.4	Prohibited activities	Yes.

	63.5	Construction/

Reconstruction	Yes.

	63.6(a)-(g)	Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements	Yes.

	63.6(h)	Opacity and visible emissions standards	Yes.

	63.6(i)(i)-(j)	Compliance extension and Presidential compliance
exemption	Yes.

	63.7(a)(3),

(b)-(h)	Performance testing requirements	Yes.

	63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2)	Applicability and performance test dates	No	Subpart
ZZZZZ specifies applicability and performance test dates.

63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3),(b), (c)(1)-(c)(3),  (c)(6)- (c)(8), (d), (e),
(f)(1)-(f)(6),(g)(1)-(g)(4)	Monitoring requirements	Yes.

	63.8(a)(4)	Additional monitoring requirements for control devices in
§63.11	No.

	63.8(c)(4)	Continuous monitoring system (CMS) requirements	No.

	63.8(c)(5)	Continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) Minimum
Procedures	No.

	63.8(g)(5)	Data reduction	No.

	63.9	Notification requirements	Yes.

	63.10(a), (b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii) -

(b)(2)(xiv),

(b)(3), (d)(1)-(2), (e)(1)- (2), (f) 	Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements	Yes.

	63.10(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15)	Additional records for continuous
monitoring systems	No.

	63.10(c)(7)-(8)	Records of excess emissions and parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS	Yes.

	63.10(d)(3)	Reporting opacity or visible emissions observations	Yes.

	63.10(e)(3)	Excess emissions reports	Yes.

	63.10(e)(4)	Reporting COMS data	No.

	63.11	Control device requirements	No.

	63.12	State authority and delegations	Yes.

	63.13-63.16

	Addresses of State air pollution control agencies and EPA regional
offices.

Incorporation by reference.

Availability of information and confidentiality. Performance track
provisions.	Yes.

	

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 §63.10900(b), your notification of compliance status
must include certifications of compliance according to the following
table.	

For. . .	Your notification of compliance status required by §63.9(h)
must include this certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official:

Each new or existing affected source classified as a large foundry and
subject to scrap management requirements in §63.10885(a)(1) and/or (2).
“This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written material
specifications for metallic scrap according to §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
§63.10885(a)(2).”

Each new or existing affected source classified as a large foundry and
subject to mercury switch removal requirements in §63.10885(b).	“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
§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 §63.10885(b)(2) and has prepared a
plan for participation in the EPA approved program according to
§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
§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
§63.10885(b)(4).” 

Each new or existing affected source classified as a large foundry and
subject to §63.10886.	“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
§63.10886.”

Each new or existing affected source classified as a large foundry and
subject to §63.10895(b).	“This facility operates a capture and
collection system for each emissions source subject to this subpart
according to §63.10895(b).”

Each existing affected source classified as a large foundry and subject
to §63.10895(c)(1).	“This facility complies with the PM or total
metal HAP emissions limit in §63.10895(c) for each metal melting
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces based on a previous
performance test in accordance with §63.10898(a)(1).”

Each new or existing affected source classified as a large foundry and
subject to §63.10896(a).	“This facility has prepared and will operate
by an operation and maintenance plan according to §63.10896(a).”

Each new or existing (if applicable) affected source classified as a
large foundry and subject to §63.10897(d).	“This facility has
prepared and will operate by a site-specific monitoring plan for each
bag leak detection system and submitted the plan to the Administrator
for approval according to §63.10897(d)(2).”

 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.

  Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in
1999, EPA has revised the area source category list   several times.

 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).

 For details see:   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm .  In particular, see the signed
Memorandum of Understanding.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   136 

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

Page   PAGE  137  of   NUMPAGES  205 

  PAGE  138