Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
Posted Date: 2007-09-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 52983-53011]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17se07-19]                         

[[Page 52983]]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

[[Page 52984]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-8466-7]
RIN 2060-AM36

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel 
foundries). The proposed requirements for the two area source 
categories are combined in one subpart. The proposed rule establishes 
different requirements for foundries based on size. Small iron and 
steel foundries would be required to comply with pollution prevention 
management practices for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury 
switches, and binder formulations. Large iron and steel foundries would 
be required to comply with the same pollution prevention management 
practices as small foundries in addition to emissions limitations for 
melting furnaces and foundry operations. EPA is also co-proposing two 
alternatives. One alternative would set a higher size threshold for 
large foundries. The second alternative proposes that all iron and 
steel foundries comply with the pollution prevention management 
practices for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and 
binder formulations. The proposed standards reflect the generally 
achievable control technology and/or management practices for each 
subcategory.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2007, unless 
a public hearing is requested by September 27, 2007. If a hearing is 
requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by 
November 1, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before 
October 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0359, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries 
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0359. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the NESHAP for Iron and Steel 

Foundries Area Sources Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information 
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: chin.conrad@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for This Proposed Rule
    A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
    B. What area source categories are affected by the proposed 
NESHAP?
    C. What are the processes and emissions sources at iron and 
steel foundries?
III. Summary of This Proposed Rule
    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. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
    A. How did EPA subcategorize iron and steel foundries?
    B. What is the performance of control technologies for metal 
melting furnaces?
    C. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP 
from small iron and steel foundries?
    D. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP 
from large iron and steel foundries?
    E. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for organic HAP 
from iron and steel foundries?
    F. How did EPA select the proposed compliance requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of This Proposed Rule

[[Page 52985]]

VI. Proposed Exemption From Title V Permit Requirements
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  331511...........  Iron foundries. Iron
                                                    and steel plants.
                                                    Automotive and large
                                                    equipment
                                                    manufacturers.
                                331512...........  Steel investment
                                                    foundries.
                                331513...........  Steel foundries
                                                    (except investment).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.10880 of subpart ZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources). If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the 
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of 
subpart A (General Provisions).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this 
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning this proposed rule by September 27, 2007, we will hold a 
public hearing on October 2, 2007. If you are interested in attending 
the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to 
verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it 
will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center 
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information for This Proposed Rule

A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are 
listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or 
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single 
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 air toxics that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban 
areas, and section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to regulate the area source 
categories that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 
``listed'' air toxics. We implement these requirements through the 
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A 
primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in 
cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
    We added iron foundries and steel foundries to the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 
43113). The inclusion of these two source categories to the section 
112(c)(3) area source category list is based on EPA's use of 1990 as 
the baseline year for that listing. Both of these source categories 
were listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source 
emissions for the following ``urban'' HAP: Compounds of chromium, lead, 
manganese, and nickel.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices by 
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on the definition of generally available control 
technology (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the legislation 
(Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which indicates GACT 
means:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

[[Page 52986]]

    Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that may have few 
establishments and many small businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT 
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and 
economic impacts of available control technologies and management 
practices on that category.
    Iron and steel foundries may emit small quantities of mercury 
compounds, dioxins, and HAP organics from furnaces that melt scrap 
containing tramp materials such as mercury switches and chlorinated 
plastics. Organic HAP emissions also result from the use of binder and 
coating formulations that contain HAP components. As a result, we are 
proposing pollution prevention management practices for the control of 
HAP (organics, metal compounds, and mercury) in the charge materials 
used by iron and steel foundries. Another pollution prevention 
management practice would require the use of non-methanol binder 
formulations in certain applications. We are also proposing 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.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 10 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by 
December 15, 2007 (Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). Other rulemakings will include 
standards for the remaining source categories.

B. What area source categories are affected by the proposed NESHAP?

    The Iron Foundries area source category includes any facility 
engaged in the production of final shape castings from grades of iron. 
The Steel Foundries area source category includes any facility engaged 
in producing final shape steel castings by the melting, alloying, and 
molding of pig iron and steel scrap. The proposed area source NESHAP 
combines the requirements for both area source categories into one rule 
because the processes are similar and many foundries produce both iron 
and steel castings.
    The U.S. Census Bureau industry statistics indicate that there were 
1,015 ferrous foundries operating in the U.S. in 2002. In 1998, we 
conducted a detailed survey of all known iron and steel foundries and 
received responses from approximately 600 foundries. This list of 600 
foundries was updated in 2006 based on information received from the 
industry trade organization and through direct contact with foundry 
owners and operators; numerous foundries closed between 1998 and 2006. 
Based on this information, we have detailed, process-specific 
information on approximately 510 iron and steel foundries that are 
currently operating in the United States. Approximately 80 of these 
facilities are major sources subject to the NESHAP for Iron and Steel 
Foundries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. We have identified a total 
of 427 iron and steel foundries that are area sources and for which we 
have detailed data.
    Based on a comparison of the Census Bureaus statistics, the 
detailed industry survey responses, and the trends in the iron and 
steel foundry industry, we estimate that there may be up to 300 
additional iron and steel foundries operating in the United States for 
which we do not have information regarding their process operations. We 
expect that the vast majority of these foundries are small operations 
with melt production less than 10,000 tpy.
    Based on the updated industry database, area source iron and steel 
foundries are located in 43 of the contiguous 48 States; 27 of these 
States have at least 5 iron and steel foundries. The States that have 
the greatest number of area source iron and steel foundries include 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and California; each of these States has 
more than 30 iron and steel foundries. A few of the States have 
regulations for particulate matter (PM) that impact iron and steel 
foundry operations. The State and local regulations often have a 
sliding scale that allows small melting capacity furnaces to have much 
higher PM emission per ton of metal melted than larger furnaces.

C. What are the processes and emissions sources at iron and steel 
foundries?

    Iron and steel foundries manufacture castings by pouring molten 
iron or steel melted in a furnace into a mold of a desired shape. The 
primary processing units of interest at iron and steel foundries, 
because of their potential to generate metal HAP emissions, are metal 
melting furnaces. HAP metal compounds may also be emitted from a 
variety of ancillary sources at the foundry such as metal inoculation, 
pouring, and grinding stations. Iron and steel foundries may also 
release organic HAP from cooling and shakeout lines, mold and core 
making lines, and mold and core coating lines, depending on the type of 
molding system and chemical binders used.
    There are three primary types of furnaces used to melt scrap metal 
at iron and steel foundries--cupolas, electric arc furnaces (EAF), and 
electric induction furnaces (EIF). Cupolas are used exclusively to 
produce molten iron; EAF are used predominately to produce molten 
steel, but are used at a few iron and steel foundries to produce molten 
iron. EIF are used to produce either molten iron or molten steel. 
Cupolas and EAF typically have larger melting capacities than EIF; the 
vast majority of area source iron and steel foundries use EIF.
    Cupolas are continuous blast furnaces. Almost all emissions from a 
cupola are contained in the flow of air exiting the stack of the 
furnace, which contains PM and organic compounds in addition to carbon 
monoxide (CO). The metal HAP in PM emissions from cupolas are primarily 
compounds of lead and manganese, with other HAP such as compounds of 
cadmium, chromium, mercury, and nickel present in lesser amounts. These 
HAP originate as impurities or trace elements in the scrap metal fed to 
the furnace. Most cupolas control PM emissions by dedicated baghouses 
or wet scrubbers.
    EAF and EIF metal melting furnaces operate in batch mode; an 
operating cycle consisting of charging, melting, backcharging (in some 
cases), and tapping. PM emissions from EAF and EIF contain similar HAP 
metal compounds as cupola furnaces, but may also contain significant 
amounts of compounds of chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel 
alloy castings are produced. Emissions from EIF are often uncontrolled, 
but baghouses, cyclones, and wet scrubbers are used to control PM 
emissions from EIF at

[[Page 52987]]

certain iron and steel foundries. PM emissions from EAF are typically 
controlled by baghouses.
    Other potential emission sources of HAP metals at iron and steel 
foundries include inoculation, pouring, and grinding stations. The 
total quantity of metal HAP emitted from these sources is small in 
comparison with the emissions from the metal melting furnaces. Capture 
and control of inoculation and pouring emissions are difficult due to 
the need to access the molten metal during these operations. 
Consequently, inoculation and pouring emissions are typically fugitive 
emission sources within the foundry. Metal grinding typically generates 
coarse PM emissions, which are often captured and controlled to improve 
the workplace environment. This coarse PM does not pose a significant 
air emission source, as these particles do not generally transport from 
the foundry building.
    The majority of organic HAP emissions from iron and steel foundry 
operations are organic HAP contained in either chemical binder or 
coating formulations that may partially evaporate or are otherwise 
emitted during the chemical application process. Organic HAP are also 
generated by incomplete combustion of organic material in the mold and 
core sand, such as binder chemicals and seacoal, when molten metal 
comes into contact with organic materials.

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule

    This section presents a summary of the requirements of this 
proposed rule and proposed regulatory alternatives. Additional details 
and the rationale for the proposed requirements are provided in section 
IV of this preamble.

A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

    The NESHAP would apply to each new and existing iron and steel 
foundry that is an area source. The compliance dates for existing area 
source standards would depend on whether the foundry is determined to 
be small or large. We are proposing to define a ``small iron and steel 
foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt 
production of 10,000 tons or less. An iron and steel foundry that has 
an annual metal melt production greater than 10,000 tons would be 
classified as a large foundry.
    Each foundry would determine its initial classification as a small 
or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008. All 
foundries would be required to comply with the pollution prevention 
management practices for metallic scrap, removal of mercury switches, 
and binder formulations no later than 1 year after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A large foundry 
would be required to comply with applicable emissions limitations and 
operation and maintenance requirements no later than 2 years after 
initial classification.\1\ The owner or operator of a new area source 
foundry would be required to comply with the rule requirements by the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register or upon 
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the initial classification, a small foundry that exceeds the 
10,000 ton annual production threshold during the preceding calendar 
year must notify the Administrator and comply with the applicable 
requirements for a large foundry within 2 years. For example, if a 
small foundry produces more than 10,000 tons of melted metal from 
January 1 through December 31, 2009, that foundry would be required to 
comply with the requirements for a large foundry by January 2012. If a 
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 production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. After 3 
years, the foundry may reclassify the facility as a small foundry 
provided the annual production for the preceding calendar year was 
10,000 tons of melted metal or less. A large foundry that becomes small 
must notify the Administrator and comply with the applicable 
requirements for small foundries immediately. If a large foundry 
becomes small and then its production exceeds 10,000 for a subsequent 
calendar year, the foundry must notify the Administrator and comply 
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately.
    We are also co-proposing an alternative plant size threshold that 
would define a ``small iron and steel foundry'' as an iron and steel 
foundry that has an annual metal melt production of 15,000 tons or 
less. An iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt 
production greater than 15,000 tons would be classified as a large 
foundry. The proposed rule requirements under this alternative plant 
size threshold would not differ from the proposed rule requirements 
described above.

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

1. Metallic Scrap
    The proposed material specification requirements are based on 
pollution prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials 
from metallic scrap before melting. All foundries would prepare and 
operate according to written material specifications for one of two 
equivalent compliance options.
    One compliance option would require 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''.
    The second compliance option would require 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. 
For scrap charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace that is 
not equipped with an afterburner, the materials specifications must 
include requirements for metal scrap to 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.
    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 proposed standards for mercury are based on pollution 
prevention and require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from 
motor vehicles

[[Page 52988]]

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. 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. A proposed 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 do not use motor vehicle scrap that 
contains mercury switches.
    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 National Vehicle Mercury Switch 
Recovery Program (NVMSRP) \2\ would be an approved program under this 
proposed standard. Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a 
compliance option would have to assume all of the responsibilities for 
steelmakers as described in the Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For details see: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm. In 

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

    Foundries could also obtain scrap from scrap providers 
participating in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or 
operator would have to 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 would have to 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 
would be submitted to the Administrator for approval and would 
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, site visits, 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 would be able to 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 would count towards the 80 
percent goal.
    An equivalent compliance option would be provided for foundries 
that do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury. The 
option would require 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.
    Records would be required to document conformance with the material 
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury 
switches. Each foundry would be 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 would be required to use a binder chemical 
formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the 
catalyst formulation. This requirement would not apply to the resin 
portion of the binder system. This proposed rule includes recordkeeping 
requirements to document conformance with this requirement.

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

    This proposed rule requires small iron and steel foundries to 
comply with the pollution prevention management practices for metallic 
scrap, mercury switches, and binder formulations described above. The 
owner or operator would be required to submit an initial notification 
of applicability no later than 120 calendar days after the final rule 
is published 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 would also be required to submit an initial written 
notification to the Administrator that identifies their facility as a 
small (or large) foundry; this notification would be due no later than 
1 year after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. Subsequent notifications would be 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 would also be 
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 would include 
certifications of compliance for the pollution prevention management 
practices. This proposed 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 proposing to require 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

[[Page 52989]]

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 proposed NESHAP requires large iron and steel foundries to 
comply with the pollution prevention management practices described in 
section III.B of this preamble. In addition, large iron and steel 
foundries would be required to operate capture and collection systems 
for metal melting furnaces and comply with emissions limitations, 
operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. We are also co-proposing an alternative under 
which we would not subcategorize between large and small foundries. 
Under this alternative, all foundries would be required to comply with 
the pollution prevention management practices described in section 
III.B of this preamble, but no foundries would be subject to the 
requirements described in section III.D of this preamble, such as the 
requirements for capture and collection systems, emissions limitations, 
and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
1. Emissions Limitations
    Large foundries would be required to 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 proposed emissions 
limits for metal melting furnaces are:
     0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal melted (lb/ton of PM) or 
0.06 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal melted (lb/ton of total 
metal HAP) for each metal melting furnace at an existing iron and steel 
foundry.
     0.1 lb/ton of PM or 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP for 
each metal melting furnace at a new iron and steel foundry.
    The owner or operator of a foundry may choose to comply with these 
emissions limits utilizing emissions averaging as specified in this 
proposed 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.
    Operating parameter limits would apply to the control device 
applied to emissions from a metal melting furnace. For a wet scrubber, 
a foundry would 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 would 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. 
For a baghouse, a foundry would maintain the pressure drop across each 
baghouse cell within the range established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    The proposed NESHAP also includes a fugitive emissions opacity 
limit of 20 percent for each building or structure housing iron and 
steel foundry operations. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive 
emissions opacity limit would 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 would be required to prepare and operate by 
an operation and maintenance (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 could be used 
to comply with the requirements for an O&M plan.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    We are proposing that large iron and steel foundries install and 
operate continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to measure and 
record operating parameters of wet scrubbers used to comply with PM or 
total metal HAP emissions limit. For electrostatic precipitators, the 
owner or operator may measure and record the voltage and secondary 
current (or total power input) using a CPMS or manually record the 
parameter(s) at least once a shift. For baghouses, the owner or 
operator of an existing foundry would conduct periodic baghouse 
inspections and manually check and record the pressure drop across each 
baghouse cell at least once a day or measure and record the pressure 
drop using a CPMS. All CPMS would be operated and maintained according 
to the O&M plan.
    As an alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an 
existing area source can use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit. 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 proposed 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 
before the next scheduled inspection 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 proposed NESHAP requires the owner or 
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. The facility 
would determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting 
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this proposed 
rule. The owner or operator would maintain records of the monthly 
calculations and report any exceedance in the semiannual report.
4. Performance Tests
    We propose 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 
promulgation 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 would be 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

[[Page 52990]]

in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the 
test, or the test results reliably demonstrate compliance 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. Performance tests 
would be required for all new area source foundries. Subsequent tests 
for furnaces would be 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 
proposed rule for determining compliance with PM or total metal HAP 
emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal melted format and for 
establishing control device operating parameter limits. This proposed 
rule also includes requirements to perform visual opacity testing every 
6 months. This proposed rule describes the methods and requirements for 
these semiannual opacity observations.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    The owner or operator would be required to submit an initial 
notification that identifies the facility as a large (or small) 
foundry. In addition, the owner or operator would be required to comply 
with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are identified in Table 3 of this proposed 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 would 
be 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 would 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 proposing to require 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 
purpose of this requirement, among other things, is to encourage 
foundries to investigate and use nonHAP binder and coating materials 
wherever feasible.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did EPA subcategorize iron and steel foundries?

    As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were 
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions 
and control technologies that would warrant subcategorization. Under 
section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes, 
types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in 
establishing such standards * * *''. In our review of the available 
data, we observed significant differences between iron and steel 
foundries based on the total melt production capacities of the foundry. 
For example, foundries with melt production quantities of 10,000 tpy or 
less represented over 70 percent of the facilities, but only 25 percent 
of the nationwide emissions. Small foundries are much more likely to 
use EIF; 77 percent of all area source EIF are at foundries with 
production of 10,000 tpy or less. On the other hand, only 37 percent of 
the cupolas and 28 percent of the EAF at area sources are at foundries 
with production of 10,000 tpy or less. Based on these differences, we 
determined that subcategorization of iron and steel foundries by size 
was justified.
    We evaluated the impacts of requiring all metal melting furnaces to 
operate with either a wet scrubber or baghouse control system. Under 
this scenario, foundries with melt capacities of 10,000 tpy or less 
incurred 74 percent of the annualized control costs and represented 
over 99 percent of the foundries with annualized costs that exceeded 3 
percent of sales; however, these foundries represented only 31 percent 
of the air emission reductions. We also evaluated the relative 
proportion of costs and emission reductions at size thresholds of 
5,000, 15,000, and 20,000 tpy melting capacity. At lower capacity 
thresholds, the control costs for foundries above the threshold 
increased significantly while the emission reductions increased only 
slightly. At higher capacity thresholds, the control costs for 
foundries above the threshold decreased but the emissions reductions 
also decreased significantly. Detailed information about the costs and 
emission reductions at these other size thresholds is available in the 
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359). In light of the relative emissions 
reductions and costs for various thresholds, we determined that a 
10,000 tpy facility-wide melting capacity was the appropriate threshold 
for subcategorizing large and small foundries.
    Consequently, we are proposing to subcategorize the iron and steel 
foundry industry into ``small'' and ``large'' foundries. A ``small iron 
and steel foundry'' would be defined as an iron and steel foundry that 
has an annual melt production of 10,000 tpy or less. A ``large iron and 
steel foundry'' would be defined as an iron and steel foundry that has 
an annual melt production greater than 10,000 tpy. It should be noted 
that this designation of small and large foundries is in no way related 
to the definition of ``small entity'' under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. Furthermore, the term ``large'' is relative; large area source 
foundries may be quite small compared to foundries that are subject to 
the major source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE).
    In light of limits on our information about costs, HAP emissions 
reductions, and foundry operations, EPA is evaluating whether, and how, 
to subcategorize the source categories, and what GACT is for the source 
categories or subcategories. Therefore, EPA is co-proposing two 
alternatives along with the 10,000 tpy threshold for large foundries. 
Under the first alternative, the threshold for large foundries would be 
set at 15,000 tpy. Under the second alternative, there would be no 
subcategorization, and all sources would be required to comply with the 
pollution prevention management practices described in section III.B of 
this preamble.
    We also evaluated the different types of furnaces and are 
considering subcategorization based on furnace type. As the different 
types of melting furnaces operate differently and have their own 
emission characteristics, subcategorization by the type of furnace 
would also be justified. We subcategorized by furnace type when we 
promulgated the major source Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63 subpart EEEEE). EAF and cupolas tend to be used at the larger 
foundries, whereas EIF are prevalent at the smaller foundries. 
Additionally, EAF and

[[Page 52991]]

cupolas tend to have higher melting capacities than EIF, especially at 
the larger foundries. For example, 88 percent of all cupolas and EAF at 
foundries with melt production greater than 10,000 tpy have metal 
melting capacities of 4 tons per hour (tph) or greater, whereas only 36 
percent of EIF at these large foundries have metal melting capacity of 
4 tph or greater. Based on the abundance of very small EIF melting 
furnaces, even at large foundries, we are also considering 
subcategorizing the EIF metal melting furnaces into ``low capacity 
EIF'' and ``high capacity EIF.'' High capacity EIF would be subject to 
requirements similar to the large foundry requirements in section III.D 
of this preamble, and low capacity EIF would be treated similarly to 
small foundries under this proposal. The threshold for classification 
as a high capacity EIF would be 4 or 5 tph.
    We request comment, along with supporting documentation, on these 
and other possible alternative subcategories based on plant size or 
furnace type. Supporting documentation must be provided in sufficient 
detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness 
of the data. We specifically request comment on the appropriateness of 
using a 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 tpy melting capacity as the 
plant size threshold for subcategorization. We also request comment on 
subcategorizing the melting furnaces by furnace type and size. 
Specifically, we request comment along with supporting documentation on 
subcategorizing EIF into low and high capacity furnaces using either a 
4 or 5 tph melting capacity threshold. Based on the comments received, 
we may elect to subcategorize between large and small iron and steel 
foundries, between furnaces using alternative size thresholds, a 
combination of foundry size and furnace type, or we may elect not to 
subcategorize at all.

B. What is the performance of control technologies for metal melting 
furnaces?

    Facility-specific and process-specific data were available for iron 
and steel foundries from a survey of the industry conducted in 1998. A 
total of 595 survey responses were originally received; the responses 
included the types of process units used at each foundry, the type of 
control device used for each process, and key design parameters of the 
processes and control systems. These data were updated based on 
additional data collected through direct facility contacts and through 
information provided by the industry trade organizations. After 
updating the data base, we have detailed information for 427 iron and 
steel foundries that are currently operating and that are area sources 
(i.e., that are not subject to the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, which applies to major sources). 
Although this data base likely does not include every foundry in the 
United States, it includes a significant majority of the foundries, 
especially those foundries with melt production quantities of 5,000 tpy 
or more, and we believe it is reasonably representative of the 
industry's current practices and controls.
    In addition to the process design information, we requested 
foundries that had conducted emissions tests on their foundry processes 
and/or control systems to submit the source test results and supporting 
information. Performance data were available for over 70 furnaces. 
Although most of these data are for larger (often major source) iron 
and steel foundries, these data provide a reasonable basis for 
assessing the performance of various control approaches for metal 
melting furnaces.
    Metal HAP compounds from iron and steel foundries are emitted 
primarily from metal melting furnaces. These metal HAP compounds are 
released as filterable PM emissions, and conventional PM control 
systems can be used to significantly reduce the metal HAP emissions 
from iron and steel foundries. Fabric filters (baghouses or cartridge 
filters) and wet scrubbers are the predominant technologies used to 
control PM from metal melting furnaces. Fabric filter systems generally 
achieve higher PM emissions reductions than wet scrubbers, as applied 
in the iron and steel foundry industry. Fabric filter systems generally 
achieve 98 to 99.9 percent control efficiency. PM wet scrubbers as used 
in the iron and steel foundry industry are typically venturi-type wet 
scrubbers that achieve a PM reduction efficiency of 85 to 95 percent. 
Electrostatic precipitators and cyclone separators are also used at 
some iron and steel foundry operations to control metal melting furnace 
emissions. We have test data for only one ESP; its performance is 
comparable to the performance of wet scrubbers. Cyclone separators are 
used in limited applications, primarily for EIF; emission reduction 
efficiencies of cyclone separators are expected to be between 40 and 70 
percent.
    Our review of the emissions test data for metal melting furnaces 
showed that although the different types of melting furnaces have 
widely different uncontrolled emissions, the controlled emissions from 
the different types of metal melting furnaces were consistent between 
the different types of furnaces when expressed in terms of pounds of PM 
emitted per ton of metal charged (lb/ton). After considering the 
control technologies in use at area source foundries, we considered 
setting an emission limit at 0.8 or 0.3 lb/ton of PM (see section IV.D 
of this preamble for our analysis of these emission limit options). The 
0.8 lb/ton of PM limit is based on the performance of a well-designed 
and operated wet scrubber system at area source iron and steel 
foundries, taking into account process and control system variability. 
The 0.3 lb/ton of PM limit is based on the performance of a reasonably-
designed and operated fabric filter control system at area source iron 
and steel foundries, taking into account process and control system 
variability. For new sources, we also considered a PM emission limit of 
0.1 lb/ton based on the performance of the best fabric filter control 
systems at existing large area source iron and steel foundries, taking 
into account process and control system variability.
    In addition to these control options that are based on add-on 
control systems, we identified scrap management practices as a 
potential means of reducing HAP emissions from the metal melting 
furnaces. This is a pollution prevention measure that can either be 
applied in conjunction with add-on controls or be applied when no add-
on controls are used. By reducing the amount of tramp metals and other 
materials in the scrap feed to the furnace, emissions of both metal HAP 
compounds and organic HAP can be reduced. However, it should be noted 
that the emissions reductions achievable by implementing scrap 
management as the primary HAP reduction activity are not as great as 
when applied in conjunction with add-on controls.

C. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP from small 
iron and steel foundries?

    Based on the considerations of what constitutes GACT as described 
in section II.A of this preamble, we identified and evaluated three 
emissions control options for small iron and steel foundries. Option 1 
is the use of scrap management practices alone. Option 2 is the use of 
a management system that includes scrap management practices and 
developing and implementing operation and maintenance plans, and 
meeting building opacity limits. Thus, Option 2 is aimed at reducing 
emissions of ancillary sources at the iron and steel foundry in 
addition to the metal melting furnaces. Option 3 is the enhanced 
management system in conjunction with

[[Page 52992]]

a PM emissions limit of 0.8 lb/ton for the metal melting furnaces. 
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the impacts of these candidate 
control options for iron and steel foundries having a production 
capacity of 10,000 tpy or less.

 Table 1.--National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Foundries With Annual Melt Production of
                                             10,000 tpy or Less \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost effectiveness ($/ton      Number of
                                 Total        Total      Emissions               PM)                 foundries
           Option               capital       annual     reduction, -----------------------------    impacted
                                cost, $     cost, $/yr   (tons PM/                                 greater than
                               (millions)   (millions)      yr)        Overall      Incremental   3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              (A) Impacts in terms of metal HAP emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  ...........         0.19         0.75      250,000  ..............               0
2...........................  ...........         0.50         1.35      370,000         520,000               8
3...........................          135         29.3         22.6    1,300,000       1,400,000             148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost effectiveness  ($/ton     Number of
                                 Total        Total       Emission           mental HAO)            foundaries
           Option               capital       annual    reductions, -----------------------------    impacted
                                cost,  $    cost, $/yr  (tons metal                                greater than
                               (millions)   (millions)   HAP/year)     Overall      Incremental   3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 (B) Impacts in terms of PM emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  ...........         0.19           16       12,000  ..............               0
2...........................  ...........         0.50           36       14,000          16,000               8
3...........................          135         29.3          480       61,000          65,000            148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are in 2005 dollars.

    The results for Option 3, as presented in Table 1 of this preamble, 
indicate that add-on controls are not cost-effective and impose undue 
economic burden for the small iron and steel foundry subcategory. While 
the cost-effectiveness values for the two management practice options 
are similar, eight foundries (all of which are small entities) have 
cost impacts greater than 3 percent of their revenue under Option 2. 
Although not presented in Table 1 of this preamble, the management 
practices represented by Option 2 also impose compliance costs that are 
between 1 and 3 percent of sales for an additional 13 iron and steel 
foundries, whereas the scrap management practices represented by Option 
1 do not result in any impacts that exceed 1 percent of revenue. 
Furthermore, the PM emitted from the ancillary sources has lower 
content of HAP metal compounds than the PM associated with the metal 
melting furnaces. Therefore, the management practices in Option 2 are 
relatively less effective at reducing emissions of HAP metal compounds 
as compared to Option 1. The additional emissions reductions achieved 
by the management system under Option 2 do not justify the additional 
costs and economic burden. Therefore, we are proposing GACT for 
emissions of metal HAP compounds from small area source foundries is 
scrap management practices. See section III.B of this preamble for a 
summary of proposed scrap management practices.

D. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP from large 
iron and steel foundries?

1. Existing Sources
    Based on the considerations of what constitutes GACT as described 
in section II.A of this preamble, we identified and evaluated four 
control options for existing large iron and steel foundries. Option 1 
is the use of a management system that includes scrap management 
practices, developing and implementing operation and maintenance plans 
and start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans, and meeting building 
opacity limits. Option 2 is the management system in conjunction with a 
PM emissions limit of 0.8 lb/ton for the metal melting furnaces. Option 
3 is the management practices in conjunction with a PM emissions limit 
of 0.3 lb/ton. Table 2 of this preamble presents the national impacts 
of control options for existing large iron and steel foundries with a 
production capacity greater than 10,000 tpy.

[[Page 52993]]

  Table 2.--National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Foundries With Annual Melt Production
                                           Greater Than 10,000 tpy \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost effectiveness  ($/ton     Number of
                                 Total        Total      Emissions               PM)                 foundries
           Option               capital       annual     reduction, -----------------------------    impacted
                                cost, $     cost, $/yr   (tons PM/                                 greater than
                               (millions)   (millions)      yr)        Overall      Incremental   3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              (A) Impacts in terms of metal HAP emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  ...........         0.90          3.7      240,000  ..............               0
2...........................           47         10.3           34      300,000         310,000               1
3...........................           91         15.5           43      360,000         580,000               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost effectiveness  ($/ton     Number of
                                 Total        Total      Emissions            metal HAP)             foundries
           Option               capital       annual     reduction, -----------------------------    impacted
                                cost, $     cost, $/yr  (tons metal                                greater than
                               (millions)   (millions)    HAP/yr)      Overall      Incremental   3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 (B) Impacts in terms of PM emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  ...........         0.90           88       10,000  ..............               0
2...........................           47         10.3        1,060        9,700           9,700               1
3...........................           91         15.5        1,210       12,800          35,000              2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are in 2005 U.S. dollars.

    As seen in Table 2 of this preamble, none of the control options 
evaluated for the large iron and steel foundry subcategory resulted in 
a substantial number of foundries with economic impacts exceeding 3 
percent of revenues. The management practices represented in Option 1 
are cost-effective for large iron and steel foundries; however, Option 
1 effects minimal emissions reductions. Option 2 (an emissions limit of 
0.8 lb/ton) has similar cost-effectiveness as Option 1, but achieves 
much greater emissions reductions, primarily by requiring controls on 
previously uncontrolled furnaces. The incremental cost-effectiveness 
when going from Option 2 to Option 3 is poor, indicating that it is not 
cost-effective to require existing large iron and steel foundries to 
achieve a 0.3 lb/ton or lower PM emission limit. This poor incremental 
cost-effectiveness results because a significant percentage of 
foundries would have to retrofit their existing control system under 
Option 3, and the cost-effectiveness of this retrofit is very poor. 
Consequently, when subcategorizing foundries by production thresholds, 
we are proposing Option 2 (management systems and PM emissions limit of 
0.8 lb/ton) as GACT for existing large iron and steel foundries.
2. New Sources
    The available emissions data for existing large area source iron 
and steel foundries were reviewed. The best-performing metal melting 
controls for this subcategory were all baghouses, regardless of furnace 
type. For each type of metal melting furnace, the best-performing 
baghouse control systems achieved a PM emission limitation of 0.1 lb/
ton. Therefore, when subcategorizing foundries by production 
thresholds, we are proposing that GACT is a PM emission limit of 0.1 
lb/ton for new large iron and steel foundries.

E. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for organic HAP from 
iron and steel foundries?

    Iron and steel foundries were not specifically listed under the 
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy for any organic HAP. However, iron 
and steel foundries have the potential to emit organic HAP from a 
variety of sources at the facility, including the metal melting 
furnace; pouring, cooling, and shake-out lines; mold and core making, 
and mold and core coating. Reductions in the organic content of binder 
systems, for example, can reduce emissions from both mold and core 
making as well as from pouring, cooling, and shake-out.
    We reviewed pollution prevention measures applicable to reduce 
organic HAP. Preventing pollution before it is generated is 
environmentally sound and preferable to controlling emissions after 
they are created. Low emitting binders and other pollution prevention 
technologies have demonstrated reductions in organic HAP emissions. 
However, there is no pollution prevention technology that is 
universally applicable for all iron and steel foundries due to the vast 
variety of casting production requirements encountered by the industry. 
Each technology must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    This proposed area source rule provides an opportunity for EPA to 
promote pollution prevention. We identified several pollution 
prevention measures which are feasible and appropriate for this 
industry. For example, the proposed scrap management program can also 
reduce emissions of organic HAP by ensuring that the scrap is depleted 
of chlorinated plastics at all times and that the scrap is depleted, to 
the extent practicable, of post-consumer oil filters and other oily 
material unless an adequate organic control system is used (e.g., an 
afterburner on a cupola). Additionally, we identified an alternative 
furfuryl alcohol warm box catalyst system that does not contain 
methanol. This alternative catalyst formulation requires no equipment 
re-tooling and provides performance comparable to the methanol-
containing formulation. Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for iron 
and steel foundries include the organic-related provisions in the scrap 
management program for all iron and steel foundries and the use of a 
furfuryl

[[Page 52994]]

alcohol warm box catalyst system that does not contain methanol for 
foundries that use a furfuryl alcohol warm box binder system.
    EPA encourages the area source foundries to learn about and 
investigate pollution prevention (P2) methods and technologies that may 
reduce or eliminate organic HAP emissions, while maintaining their 
quality, productivity, and competitiveness. Therefore, as part of this 
proposed rule, EPA is also requiring foundries to keep copies of 
purchasing records, Material Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation 
that provides information on liquid or solid binder materials. Among 
other things, these records may assist area source foundry owners or 
operators in their pursuit of cost-effective pollution prevention 
opportunities.

F. How did EPA select the proposed compliance requirements?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and 
recordkeeping requirements needed to ensure compliance with the rule 
requirements. These provisions include scaled-down versions of 
requirements that have been applied to several industries, including 
larger iron and steel foundries that are subject to the standards for 
major sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. In selecting these 
requirements, we identified the minimum information necessary to ensure 
emissions controls are maintained and operated properly on a continuing 
basis (Option 1). We also evaluated more enhanced monitoring 
requirements, such as the use of bag leak detection systems, that were 
required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE (Option 2). The enhanced 
monitoring requirements under Option 2 increased by three the number of 
foundries impacted greater than 1 percent of revenue and caused one 
additional small business foundry to have compliance costs that exceed 
3 percent of revenue. In light of the additional burdens that enhanced 
monitoring would pose for small foundries, we are not proposing 
enhanced monitoring requirements. The selected monitoring option 
ensures compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule without 
posing a significant additional burden for foundries that must 
implement them.
    We are allowing up to 1 year for all existing area source foundries 
to comply with the pollution prevention management practices and up to 
2 years after initial classification for large foundries to comply with 
the emissions limitations, and operation and maintenance requirements. 
If a small foundry exceeds the annual metal melt production threshold 
for a large foundry for the first time, the foundry would be required 
to submit a notification of reclassification within 30 days and comply 
with the requirements for large iron and steel foundries within 2 
years. A facility that is classified as a large foundry must comply 
with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years before 
reclassifying the facility as a small facility, even if the annual 
production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. All foundries would 
be required to provide written notification to the Administrator of a 
change in compliance status.
    Because of the uncertainty in the emissions control status of 
existing facilities, we are proposing that each foundry conduct a 
performance test for each metal melting furnace (or group of all metal 
melting furnaces) subject to the PM or total metal HAP emissions limit 
and each building or structure subject to the opacity limit for 
fugitive emissions. Existing foundries may choose to use the results of 
a previous performance test that demonstrates compliance with the 
applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limit for a metal melting 
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces instead of conducting a 
new test, provided the previous test meets the rule requirements. This 
proposed rule requires the owner or operator to provide written 
notification of the intent to use the previous test data, including (if 
applicable) information demonstrating that the test data is 
representative of current operations and processes. This notification 
would be submitted no later than 60 days after the compliance date for 
an existing foundry in order that the foundry could still conduct a 
test within 180 days of the compliance date if the regulatory agency 
determines a new test is needed. Subsequent performance tests would be 
required every 5 years and each time the foundry changed an operating 
limit or made a process change likely to increase metal HAP emissions. 
We are proposing subsequent tests because the proposed monitoring 
requirements do not provide a direct measurement of emissions.
    We are proposing opacity observations every 6 months to demonstrate 
compliance with the fugitive emissions limit. We evaluated alternative 
requirements, including equipment inspection and visible emission 
observations. These alternatives were not well correlated with the 20 
percent building opacity emissions limit, and were therefore rejected. 
We request comment on alternative compliance requirements for the 
building opacity limit and the appropriate frequency of these 
observations. Alternatives to Method 9 observations must indicate how 
the suggested alternative can be related to the 20 percent opacity 
limit.
    The proposed NESHAP allows CPMS for the control devices. We are 
proposing to require bag leak detection systems for baghouses used at 
new area sources; these are typical monitoring requirements at 
facilities of the size and complexity of iron and steel foundries area 
sources. Inspection and repair requirements are also proposed to ensure 
proper operation and maintenance of capture systems.
    We are also proposing to apply the notification, testing, 
monitoring, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A). The General Provisions are necessary for effective application of 
the standard for existing and new area sources. In the notification of 
compliance status required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator 
would certify that specified equipment has been installed and is 
operating for each regulated emissions source, the facility has 
complied with specific equipment standards and management practices, 
written plans have been prepared, and whether the plant is certifying 
compliance with emissions limits based on a previous performance test. 
Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports must be submitted 
as required by 40 CFR 63.6, and semiannual reports must be submitted as 
required by 40 CFR 63.10. The proposed NESHAP also includes 
recordkeeping requirements to supplement the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.10. These records are needed for EPA to determine compliance with 
specific rule requirements. The testing, monitoring, notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are necessary and sufficient 
to ensure compliance with the proposed requirements for existing and 
new area sources.

V. Summary of Impacts of This Proposed Rule

    We estimate that the proposed standard (10,000 tpy production 
capacity threshold) will reduce emissions of HAP metal compounds by 35 
tpy and will reduce PM emissions by 1,074 tpy from the baseline. 
Additionally, the proposed standard is expected to reduce emissions of 
organic HAP by 32 tpy. The total capital cost of the proposed standard 
is estimated at $47 million. The annual operating, maintenance, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs of the proposed standard 
are estimated at

[[Page 52995]]

$6.1 million per year. The total annualized cost of the proposed 
standard, including the annualized cost of capital equipment, is 
estimated at $10.5 million. Under the co-proposed alternative that sets 
a higher size threshold for large foundries, the estimated emission 
reductions from baseline are 29 tpy of metal HAP, 32 tpy of organic 
HAP, and 905 tpy of PM; the total capital cost of this alternative is 
estimated at $34 million and the total annualized cost of this 
alternative, including the annualized cost of capital equipment, is 
estimated at $7.9 million. Under the co-proposed alternative that does 
not subcategorize large foundries, the estimated emission reductions 
from baseline are 3.4 tpy of metal HAP, 32 tpy of organic HAP, and 64 
tpy of PM; there are no capital costs under this alternative and the 
total annualized cost is estimated at $1.0 million. Additional 
information on our impact estimates on the sources is available in the 
docket. (See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359.)
    The proposed standard is estimated to impact a total of 427 area 
source iron and steel foundries. When subcategorizing foundries by 
production thresholds, we estimate that 96 to 124 of these foundries 
will be large iron and steel foundries and 303 to 331 foundries will be 
small iron and steel foundries (depending on the production threshold). 
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.
    The secondary impacts would include solid waste generated as a 
result of the PM emissions collected and energy impacts associated with 
operation of control devices. At a 10,000 tpy production capacity 
threshold, we estimate that 1,110 tpy of solid waste would be generated 
and an additional 4,490 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy 
would be consumed each year as a result of the proposed standard. Under 
the co-proposed alternative that sets a higher size threshold for large 
foundries, we estimate that 930 tpy of solid waste would be generated 
and an additional 3,680 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy 
would be consumed each year. Under the co-proposed alternative that 
does not subcategorize large foundries, there are no secondary impacts.

VI. Proposed Exemption From Title V Permit Requirements

    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
'' on the area source category. In December 2005, in a national 
rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in 
CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor test for determining 
whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular source 
category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 
75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area 
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would 
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the 
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category 
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in 
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained 
that we considered on ``a case-by-case'' basis the extent to which one 
or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given 
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be 
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 
502(a) of the CAA. See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we 
explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of 
exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome 
for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be 
considered in combination, and EPA determines whether the factors, 
taken together, support an exemption from title V for a particular 
source category. In the Exemption Rule, EPA also indicated that, 
consistent with the guidance provided by the legislative history of 
section 502(a), EPA would consider whether exempting the area source 
category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the 
environment in deciding whether to exempt an area source category. See 
70 FR 15254-15255.
    We applied the four-factor test to determine whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome on the Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries area 
source categories. Starting with the first factor, which is to 
determine whether permits would result in significant improvements to 
the compliance requirements for the area source categories, we compared 
the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 
title V permitting rules (40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR 71.6) to those 
requirements in the proposed NESHAP. As noted above (see section III of 
this preamble), this proposed rule establishes different monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for small and large 
foundries.
    Specifically, this proposed rule requires all foundries to comply 
with the pollution prevention management practices for metallic scrap, 
mercury switches, and binder formulations. All foundries would be 
required to keep records of information that demonstrate compliance 
with the management practices for metallic scrap and mercury switch 
removal requirements. Records to document the use of binder chemical 
formulations that do contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the 
catalyst formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box or core making 
line may be the Material Data Safety Sheet (provided it contains 
appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a 
manufacturer's HAP data sheet. We are proposing that the area source 
facilities keep records of the annual quantity and composition of each 
HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds 
and cores. This proposed rule also requires all foundries to keep 
monthly production records to document annual metal melt production.
    In addition to the pollution prevention management practices, large 
foundries would be required to comply with emissions limits, control 
device parameter operating limits, monitoring requirements, and 
operating and maintenance requirements. A CPMS would be required to 
measure and record operating parameters for a wet scrubber every 15 
minutes and determine and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and 
water flow rate. If an electrostatic precipitator is used, the owner or 
operator would be required to measure the hourly average voltage and 
secondary current (or total power input)

[[Page 52996]]

using a CPMS or check and record the secondary current (or total power 
input) at least once a shift. For a baghouse, this proposed rule 
requires a CPMS to measure and record the baghouse pressure drop across 
each cell using a CPMS or by checking the pressure drop once a day and 
recording the results. Foundries would also make periodic inspections 
of each baghouse and record the results of each inspection. 
Alternatively, the owner or operator of an existing foundry may install 
and operate bag leak detection systems. Bag leak detection systems 
would be required for any new foundry. Large foundries would be 
required to make monthly inspections of capture systems. Performance 
tests for furnaces would be required every 5 years and every 6 months 
for fugitive emissions from buildings and structures housing foundry 
operations; the results would be reported in the next semiannual 
report. The proposed NESHAP also requires foundries to prepare and 
follow an operation and maintenance plan that identifies monitoring 
procedures and schedules. If a facility elected to use emissions 
averaging to demonstrate compliance, the foundry would be required to 
demonstrate compliance once each calendar month by calculating the 
weighted average emissions for the group of all metal melting furnaces 
at the foundry using an equation in the rule. This proposed rule 
requires records of the monthly calculations. This proposed rule, 
therefore, contains both continuous and noncontinuous monitoring 
requirements, which constitute periodic monitoring that will assure 
compliance with the proposed rule.
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance 
compliance through additional recordkeeping or reporting, including 
title V requirements in 40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR 71.6 for a semiannual 
report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification. All 
foundries would be required to record specific information to 
demonstrate conformance with the pollution prevention management 
practices and keep records of monthly production data. All foundries 
also would be required to submit a notification that classifies the 
facility as a small foundry or a large foundry and to submit subsequent 
notifications for any change in classification.
    Small foundries would be required to submit an initial notice of 
applicability and a notification of compliance status. Records would be 
required to demonstrate conformance with the pollution prevention 
management standards for metallic scrap, mercury switches, and binder 
formulations. Small foundries also would be required to report any 
deviation from the pollution prevention management practices in the 
semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10.
    In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general 
provisions, large foundries would be required to keep records to 
demonstrate conformance with the pollution prevention management 
standards for metallic scrap, mercury switches, and binder 
formulations; operation and maintenance plans; capture system 
inspections and repairs; control device monitoring and inspections; 
emissions averaging (if applicable); bag leak detection system settings 
and alarms (if applicable); and corrective actions. The semiannual 
report submitted by large foundries would include summary information 
on the number, duration, and cause of excursions or exceedances and the 
corrective action taken, on monitor downtime incidents, and deviations 
from pollution prevention management practices or operation and 
maintenance requirements. The proposed NESHAP requires large foundries 
to comply with applicable notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) 
including requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, 
reports, and records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3); see Table 3 of this proposed 
rule. When a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report must be 
submitted, it must consist of a letter containing the name, title, and 
signature of the owner or operator or other responsible official who is 
certifying its accuracy. The information in the reports required for 
area source foundries (both large and small) is similar to the 
information that must be provided in the semiannual reports required 
under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    This proposed rule does not require an annual compliance 
certification report, which is a requirement of a title V permit. See 
40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the 
annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the 
initial compliance certifications, recordkeeping requirements, and 
semiannual reports are adequate to determine compliance for new or 
existing sources.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the 
proposed NESHAP for the Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries area source 
categories are substantially equivalent to such requirements under 
title V. Therefore, we conclude that title V would not result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements we are 
proposing for these area source categories.
    We evaluated factor two to determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area source categories and 
whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source 
may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting 
any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that 
do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated that the 
average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit 
was $7,700 per year per source, including fees, or $38,000 per source 
for a (5-year) permit period. See Information Collection Request (ICR) 
for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 
1587.05. There are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 
71 rules that are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They 
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and 
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; 
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the 
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; 
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation 
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of 
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting 
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance 
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit 
revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many 
sources obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and 
engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting 
program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides information on the 
overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each 
activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of 
requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see 
the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In considering the second factor for the 427 existing iron and 
steel foundries (319 of which are owned by small entities), we examined 
the potential economic implications for the source category. At a cost 
of $38,000 per source, the cost to the area source

[[Page 52997]]

category would be about $16.2 million. The cost of permits for this 
area source category would exceed the estimated total annualized cost 
of the standards ($10.5 million). Although our economic analysis of the 
impacts of this proposed rule on small entities does not include the 
cost of title V permitting, we believe that such additional costs would 
result in adverse impacts for many small entities and perhaps on the 
industry as a whole. We believe an additional cost of $38,000 would 
create a significant risk of closure for approximately 110 foundries, 
nearly all of which are owned by small entities, as the $38,000 cost of 
title V permitting alone would exceed 3 percent of revenues for these 
foundries. We also looked at the economic resources of facilities in 
this source category. While some facilities are large, sophisticated 
operations with expertise in regulatory and permitting requirements, 
the majority of facilities in this area source category are small 
entities which may not have this expertise. Due to the sheer number of 
facilities, we suspect that the cost impact could be aggravated by 
difficulties in obtaining assistance from overburdened permitting 
authorities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second 
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with 
title V would impose a significant burden on approximately 110 area 
source iron and steel foundries. In addition, we do not think the costs 
for the existing or new sources would lead to any gains in compliance 
within the category. As discussed above for factor one, we determined 
that the compliance requirements of this NESHAP are substantially 
equivalent to the requirements of title V. Furthermore, as discussed 
below for factor four, there are adequate implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that the costs of title V are 
not justified for the existing and new sources in this category.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation 
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure 
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. We 
believe that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance 
with these NESHAP. We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce 
these NESHAP at any time under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114.
    We conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure 
compliance with this proposed NESHAP because the statutory requirements 
for implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP by the delegated 
States and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance without title V 
permits. We also note that small business assistance programs required 
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been 
exempted from title V permitting. In addition, States and EPA often 
conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education 
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by 
statute. These additional programs can be used to supplement and 
enhance the success of compliance with this area source NESHAP. In 
light of all of the above, we conclude that there are implementation 
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure 
compliance with the NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying this factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. We do not have similar data available 
for this proposed rule, but we have no reason to think that States will 
be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, 
States must have adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and 
provide assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will 
delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. In light of the 
above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
final rule without relying on title V permitting.
    Considering the factors in combination supports our proposed 
finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these area source 
categories. We conclude that title V would not result in significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements applicable to these area 
source categories and that there are adequate implementation and 
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. We 
also conclude that the cost of title V permitting would be burdensome; 
we also find that the cost is not justified because there would be 
little to no potential gains in compliance within the category if title 
V was required. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the iron foundries and steel foundries 
area source categories.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of CAA 
section 502(a), whether exempting these area source categories from 
title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or 
the environment. We see no reason to believe that exemption of this 
area source category from title V requirements would adversely affect 
public health, welfare, or the environment because these national 
standards would achieve a significant reduction in HAP and other 
emissions that would improve public health, welfare, and the 
environment. For the foregoing reasons, we propose to exempt iron 
foundries and steel foundries area source categories from title V 
permitting requirements.

VII. 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 proposed rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR) document 
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2267.01
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed 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

[[Page 52998]]

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 would be 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 would be required to maintain monthly production data to support 
their classification as a large or small foundry.
    The proposed 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 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 would be required to 
prepare and follow an O&M plan, conduct initial performance tests and 
follow-up tests every 5 years, 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 would be 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 would be 
required to 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 would be required to 
demonstrate compliance for each calendar month using a calculation 
procedure in the rule. The owner or operator of a large iron and steel 
foundry would be 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 would 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 5,990 labor hours per 
year at a cost of $418,295 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 proposed standards (based 
on a subcategorization using a production capacity threshold of 10,000 
tpy for the definition of ``small iron and steel foundry''). Because 
this proposal represents estimates of the maximum burden, we did not 
estimate the ICR burden associated with the co-proposed standards for 
this proposed rule.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0897. Submit 
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rules to EPA and OMB. 
See ``Addresses'' section at the beginning of this notice for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after September 17, 2007, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 
17, 2007. This final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed 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 proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed 
rule is estimated to impact a total of 427 area source iron and steel 
foundries; 319 of these foundries are small entities. We estimate that 
124 of these foundries would be large iron and steel foundries (metal 
melt production greater than 10,000 tpy), and 303 foundries would be 
small iron and steel foundries (metal melt production of 10,000 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 3.5 percent. The 
analysis also shows that of the 60 foundries owned by small entities 
subject to the requirements for large foundries (i.e., exceeding 10,000 
tpy melt production), only one small entity may incur economic impacts 
exceeding 3 percent

[[Page 52999]]

of its revenue; see Table 2 of this preamble.
    This proposed rule minimizes the impact on small entities by 
applying special provisions for small foundries that melt low 
quantities of metal (less than 10,000 tpy). Small iron and steel 
foundries would be 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 proposed 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.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues 
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. This proposed rule is not expected to 
impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this proposed rule is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This proposed rule contains no requirements that apply to 
such governments, and impose no obligations upon them. Therefore, this 
proposed rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not 
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of 
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would 
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 proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed 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 proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

[[Page 53000]]

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. We have concluded that this proposed 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because energy 
requirements would not be significantly impacted by the additional 
pollution controls or other equipment that are required by this 
proposed rule.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rule involves technical standards. The proposal cites 
the following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 9, and 29 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 
and EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' in ``Test Methods 
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA 
Publication SW-846 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 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, 29, or 9095B. The search 
and review results are in the docket for this rule.
    One VCS was identified as applicable to this proposed rule. The 
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) is cited in this proposed 
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 proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods 
for the purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend 
to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for the 
determinations for the 13 methods are discussed in a memorandum in the 
docket for this proposed rule.
    For the methods required or referenced by this proposed 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. EPA welcomes 
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS and to 
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule 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 would reduce HAP emissions 
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected 
populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: September 6, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

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

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) 
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), Table 
5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, and Table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this 
part.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' dated November 
2004 and in Update III, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.7700(b) and 
63.7765 of subpart EEEEE of this part and Sec. Sec.  63.10885(a)(1) and 
63.10906 of subpart ZZZZZ of this part.
* * * * *
    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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.10880 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.10881 What are my compliance dates?
63.10882 How does this subpart apply to small iron and steel 
foundries and large iron and steel foundries?

Pollution Prevention Management Practices

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

[[Page 53001]]

Requirements for Small Iron and Steel Foundries

63.10890 What are my management practices and compliance 
requirements?

Requirements for Large Iron and Steel 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 me?

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 Large Iron and Steel Foundries
    Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Establishment of Operating 
Limits for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
    Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Large Iron and Steel Foundries
    Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Compliance Certifications for 
Large Iron and Steel Foundries

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.10880  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron 
and steel foundry that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each iron and steel foundry.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source before September 17, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 17, 2007.
    (c) On and after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, if your iron and steel foundry becomes a major source 
as defined in Sec.  63.2, you must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEEEE.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
    (e) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.
    (f) 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 10,000 tons or 
less, your area source is a small foundry. If your metal melt 
production for calendar year 2008 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 1 year after the date the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register.

Sec.  63.10881  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by 
the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, not later 
than 1 year after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register for the pollution prevention management practices in 
Sec. Sec.  63.10885 and 63.10886.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, not later 
than 2 years after the date of your large foundry's notification of the 
initial determination required in Sec.  63.10880(f) for the standards 
and management practices in Sec.  63.10895.
    (b) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup 
date is on or before the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with the provisions of 
this subpart not later than the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register.
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the 
initial startup date is after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with the 
provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (d) Following the initial determination for a small foundry or 
large foundry required in Sec.  63.10880(f),
    (1) If the annual metal melt production of your small foundry 
exceeds 10,000 tons during the preceding calendar year, you must notify 
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 production exceeded 10,000 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 production exceeded 10,000 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 production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. After 3 
years, you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided 
your annual production for the preceding calendar year was 10,000 tons 
of melted metal or less. If you reclassify your large foundry as a 
small foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a small 
foundry no later than the date you notify the Administrator of the 
reclassification.

Sec.  63.10882  How does this subpart apply to small iron and steel 
foundries and large iron and steel foundries?

    (a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that is 
a small iron and steel foundry as defined in Sec.  63.10906, you must 
comply with the requirements in Sec.  63.10890. The requirements in 
Sec.  63.10890 include the pollution prevention management practices in 
Sec. Sec.  63.10885 and 63.10886.
    (b) If you own or operate a large iron and steel foundry as defined 
in Sec.  63.10906, you must comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.10895 through 63.10900. The requirements in Sec.  63.10895 include 
the pollution prevention management practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 
and 63.10886.

[[Page 53002]]

Pollution Prevention Management Practices

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

    (a) Metallic scrap management program. For each segregated metallic 
scrap storage area, bin or pile, you must comply with the materials 
acquisition requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. 
You must keep a copy of the material specifications onsite and readily 
available to all personnel with material acquisition duties, and 
provide a copy to each of your scrap vendors. 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), as published in EPA Publication SW-846 ``Test Methods 
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'' (incorporated 
by reference--see Sec.  63.14). The requirements of this paragraph 
(a)(1) do not apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags or other 
internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace.
    (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) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace 
that is not equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap materials must 
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 free liquids.
    (ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is 
equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap materials must be depleted 
(to the extent practicable) of the presence of chlorinated plastics, 
accessible lead-containing components (such as batteries and wheel 
weights), and free liquids.
    (b) Mercury requirements. For each scrap provider, contract, or 
shipment, you must procure all motor vehicle scrap pursuant to one of 
the alternatives in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. You 
may have one scrap provider, contract, or shipment subject to one 
alternative and others subject to another alternative.
    (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. The Administrator 
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 
disposal of the mercury switches removed as required by the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
    (B) Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that 
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap 
specification;
    (C) Provisions for periodic inspection, site visits, 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 they are properly disposing of 
the mercury switches removed, including the minimum frequency such 
means of corroboration will be implemented; and
    (D) Provisions for taking corrective actions 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 the removal of 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) 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 number of 
vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches 
recovered, and certification that the recovered mercury switches were 
recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities. 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) Alternative 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.
    (i) There is an outreach program 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 for the removal of at least 80 percent 
of mercury switches. 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

[[Page 53003]]

weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the number of vehicles 
processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, 
and certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at 
RCRA-permitted facilities. The Administrator may change the approval 
status of a program following 90-days notice based on the progress 
report or other information.
    (3) Alternative for specialty metal scrap. You must certify in your 
notification of compliance status 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.

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

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

Requirements for Small Iron and Steel Foundries

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

    (a) You must comply with the pollution prevention management 
practices for metallic scrap and mercury switches in Sec.  63.10885 and 
binder formulations in Sec.  63.10886.
    (b) You must submit an initial notification of applicability 
according to Sec.  63.9(b)(2).
    (c) You must submit a notification of compliance status according 
to Sec.  63.9(h)(1)(i). You must send the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th day after the 
applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.10881. The 
notification must include the following compliance certifications, as 
applicable:
    (1) ``This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written 
material specifications for metallic scrap according to Sec.  
63.10885(a)(1)'' and/or ``This facility has prepared, and will operate 
by, written material specifications for general iron and steel scrap 
according to Sec.  63.10885(a)(2).''
    (2) ``This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written 
material specifications for the removal of mercury switches and a site-
specific plan implementing the material specifications according to 
Sec.  63.10890(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 Sec.  63.10890(b)(2)'' and/or 
``This facility complies with the alternative requirements in Sec.  
63.10890(b)(3) for specialty metal scrap and will recover only 
materials from motor vehicles for their specialty alloy content that 
are not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.'' No mercury 
switch certification is required if your facility does not purchase any 
motor vehicles scrap.
    (3) ``This facility complies with the no methanol requirement for 
the catalyst portion of each binder chemical formulation for a furfuryl 
alcohol warm box mold or core making line according to Sec.  
63.10886.''
    (d) You must maintain records of the information specified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (1) Records supporting your initial notification of applicability 
and your notification of compliance status according to Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of your written materials specifications according to 
Sec.  63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a)(1) or 
general scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a)(2).
    (3) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan 
for mercury switch removal in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1), you must:
    (i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or 
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, 
the 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 number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the 
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the 
recovered mercury switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities. 
The semiannual reports must include certification that you have 
conducted inspections, site visits, or taken other means of 
corroboration as required under Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must 
identify which alternative in paragraph Sec.  63.10885(b) applies to 
each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You may include this 
information in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    (4) If you are subject to the alternative for approved mercury 
programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must maintain 
records identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap 
provider's participation in an approved mercury switch removal program.
    (5) Records to document use of binder chemical formulation that 
does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst 
formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line 
as required by Sec.  63.10886. These records must be the Material 
Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate information), 
a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer's hazardous air 
pollutant data sheet.
    (6) Records of the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-
containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds and 
cores. These records must be copies of purchasing records, Material 
Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provide information on 
the binder or coating materials used.
    (7) Records of metal melt production for each calendar year.
    (e) You must submit semiannual reports to the Administrator 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(e). The report must 
clearly identify any deviation from the pollution prevention management 
practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 or 63.10886 and the corrective action 
taken.
    (f) Beginning January 1, 2010, if the annual metal melt production 
for your small foundry exceeds 10,000 tons during the preceding year, 
you must submit a notification of foundry reclassification to the 
Administrator within 30 days and you must comply with the requirements 
for large foundries by the applicable dates in Sec.  63.10881(d)(1)(i) 
or (d)(1)(ii).
    (g) You must comply with the following requirements of General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A): Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.5; 
Sec.  63.6(a), (b), (c), and (e)(1); Sec.  63.9; Sec.  63.10(a), 
(b)(1), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (f); and Sec. Sec.  
63.13 through 63.16.

Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries

Sec.  63.10895  What are my standards and management practices?

    (a) You must operate a capture and collection system for each metal 
melting furnace at a new or existing iron and steel foundry. Each 
capture and

[[Page 53004]]

collection system must meet accepted engineering standards, such as 
those published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists.
    (b) 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 (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) For an existing iron and steel foundry, 0.8 pounds of 
particulate matter (PM) per ton of metal charged (lb/ton of PM) or 0.06 
pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged (lb/ton of total 
metal HAP).
    (2) For a new iron and steel foundry, 0.1 lb/ton of PM or 0.008 lb/
ton of total metal HAP.
    (c) If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry, 
you must comply with each control device parameter operating limit in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) 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.
    (3) For each baghouse applied to emissions from a metal melting 
furnace that is subject to the monitoring and inspection requirements 
in Sec.  63.10897(c), you must maintain the pressure drop across each 
baghouse cell within the range established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    (d) If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry, 
you must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive emissions from a 
building or structure housing any iron and steel foundry operations 
that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute average).
    (e) You must comply with the pollution prevention management 
practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 and 63.10886.

Sec.  63.10896  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must prepare and follow a written operation and maintenance 
(O&M) plan for each control device used to comply with the requirements 
of this subpart. 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, the O&M plan must include:
    (i) If the baghouse is subject to the monitoring requirements in 
Sec.  63.10897(c), information on how the baghouse system will be 
operated and maintained, including monitoring of pressure drop across 
baghouse cells and frequency of visual inspections of the baghouse 
interior and baghouse components such as dust removal and bag cleaning 
mechanisms and fans; or
    (ii) If the baghouse is subject to the monitoring requirements in 
Sec.  63.10897(d), the site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak 
detection system required in Sec.  63.10897(d)(2).
    (4) Identity and estimated quantity of the replacement parts that 
will be maintained in inventory; and
    (5) Procedures for operating and maintaining a continuous parameter 
monitoring system (CPMS) in accordance with manufacturer's 
specifications.
    (b) You may use any other O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar 
plan which addresses the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) through (5) 
of this section to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for an 
O&M plan.

Sec.  63.10897  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting 
furnace, you must use a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
to measure and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber 
water flow rate.
    (b) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a 
metal melting furnace, you must measure and record the hourly average 
voltage and secondary current (or total power input) using a CPMS or 
check and record the voltage and secondary current (or total power 
input) at least once a shift.
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
comply with the monitoring and inspection requirements in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (8) of this section for each baghouse applied to 
emissions from a metal melting furnace. You must record the date and 
results of each inspection.
    (1) Measure and record the pressure drop across each baghouse cell 
each day.
    (2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of 
removal mechanisms.
    (3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each 
day.
    (4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology.
    (5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to check for shaker-type 
baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
    (7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through 
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
    (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 monitoring and inspection requirements in 
paragraph (c) 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

[[Page 53005]]

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 before the 
next scheduled inspection. 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 operating limit), you must restore operation of 
the emissions source (including the control device and associated 
capture system) to its normal or usual manner or operation as 
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The response shall include 
minimizing the period of any startup, shutdown or malfunction and 
taking any necessary corrective actions to restore normal operation and 
prevent the likely recurrence of the exceedance. You must record the 
date and time correction action was initiated, the correction action 
taken, and the date corrective action was completed.
    (h) If you choose to comply with an emissions limit in Sec.  
63.10895(b) using emissions averaging, you must calculate and record 
for each calendar month the pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of 
metal melted from the group of all metal melting furnaces at your 
foundry. You must calculate and record the weighted average pounds per 
ton emissions rate for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the 
foundry determined from the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.10898(d) and (e).
    (i) Except for, as applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated 
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and 
span adjustments), you must conduct all continuous monitoring (or must 
collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the emissions 
source is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control 
activities shall not be used for the purposes of this subpart, 
including data averages and calculations, or fulfilling a minimum data 
availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control device and associated control system. A monitoring malfunction 
is any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of 
the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are 
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 
malfunctions.

Sec.  63.10898  What are my performance test requirements?

    (a) You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the applicable emissions limits for each metal melting 
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that is subject to an 
emissions limit in Sec.  63.10895(b) and for each building or structure 
housing foundry operations that is subject to the opacity limit for 
fugitive emissions in Sec.  63.10895(d). 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

[[Page 53006]]

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 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.
    (b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable emissions limit Sec.  63.10895(b) for a 
metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces no less 
frequently than every 5 years and each time you elect to change an 
operating limit or make a process change likely to increase HAP 
emissions.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), Table 1 to this subpart, and 
paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section.
    (d) To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal 
HAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.10895(b) 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.000

Where:

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

    (e) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit in 
Sec.  63.10895(b) for a group of all metal melting furnaces using 
emissions averaging,
    (1) Determine and record the monthly average charge rate for each 
metal melting furnace at your iron and steel foundry for the previous 
calendar month; and
    (2) Compute the mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP using Equation 
2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.001

Where:

EC = The mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP emissions 
for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the foundry, lb/ton;
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, 
lb/ton;
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, you may assume an emissions factor of 3 
pounds per ton of PM or 0.2 pounds per ton of total metal HAP per ton 
of metal melted in Equation 2 of this section instead of a measured 
test value. If the uncontrolled electric induction furnace is equipped 
with a capture system, you must use a measured test value.
    (f) To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal 
HAP emissions limit for a metal melting furnace in Sec.  63.10895(b) 
when emissions from one or more regulated furnaces are combined with 
other non-regulated emissions sources, you may demonstrate compliance 
using the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Determine the PM or total metal HAP process-weighted mass 
emissions for each of the regulated streams prior to the combination 
with other exhaust streams or control device.
    (2) Measure the flow rate and PM or total metal HAP concentration 
of the combined exhaust stream both before and after the control device 
and calculate the mass removal efficiency of the control device using 
Equation 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.002

Where:

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

    (3) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated PM 
or total metal HAP process-weighted mass emissions for the regulated 
emissions source using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.003

Where:

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

    (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-

[[Page 53007]]

specific test plan to the Administrator for approval according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(c)(2) and (3).
    (h) You must conduct each opacity test for fugitive emissions 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6(h)(5) and Table 1 to this 
subpart.
    (i) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  63.10895(d) 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 during the initial 
performance test according to the requirements in Table 2 of this 
subpart. You may use a previous performance test conducted prior to 
September 17, 2007 to establish an operating limit provided the test 
meets the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (l) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber, 
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse if you meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your plan 
to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emissions limitation in Sec.  63.10895(b).
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in Table 2 to this subpart.

Sec.  63.10899  What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

    (a) In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, you must 
maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (12) of this section according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10(b)(1).
    (1) Records of your written materials specifications according to 
Sec.  63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a)(1) or 
general scrap in Sec.  63.10885(a)(2).
    (2) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan 
for mercury switch removal in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1), you must:
    (i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or 
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, 
the 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 number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the 
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the 
recovered mercury switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities. 
The semiannual reports must include certification that you have 
conducted inspections, site visits, or taken other means of 
corroboration as required under Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must 
identify which alternative in Sec.  63.10885(b) applies to each scrap 
provider, contract, or shipment. You may include this information in 
the semiannual reports required under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) If you are subject to the alternative for approved mercury 
programs under Sec.  63.10885(b)(2), you must maintain records 
identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's 
participation in an approved mercury switch removal program.
    (4) Records to document use of binder chemical formulation that 
does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst 
formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line 
as required by Sec.  63.10886. These records must be the Material 
Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate information), 
a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer's hazardous air 
pollutant data sheet.
    (5) 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) Records of monthly metal melt production for each calendar 
year.
    (7) Operation and maintenance plan as required by Sec.  63.10896(a) 
and records that demonstrate compliance with plan requirements.
    (8) If you use emissions averaging, records of monthly metal 
melting rate for each furnace at your iron and steel foundry, and 
records of the calculated pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of 
metal melted for the group of all metal melting furnaces required by 
Sec.  63.10897(h).
    (9) Records of baghouse monitoring and inspections required by 
Sec.  63.10897(c) or, if applicable, 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) Records of capture system inspections and repairs as required 
by Sec.  63.10897(e).
    (11) Records demonstrating conformance with your O&M plan and 
specifications for the operation of CPMS as required by Sec.  
63.10897(f).
    (12) Records of corrective action(s) for exceedances and excursions 
as required by Sec.  63.10897(h).
    (b) You must submit semiannual reports to the Administrator 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(e). The reports must 
include, at a minimum, the following information as applicable:
    (1) Summary information on the number, duration, and cause 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, 
as applicable, and the corrective action taken;
    (2) Summary information on the number, duration, and cause 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor downtime incidents 
(other than downtime associated with zero and span or other calibration 
checks, if applicable); and
    (3) Summary information on any deviation from the pollution 
prevention management practices in Sec. Sec.  63.10885 and 63.10886 and 
the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.  63.10896 and the 
corrective action taken.

Sec.  63.10900  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

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

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.10905  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a 
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State,

[[Page 53008]]

local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the EPA, 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 (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
40 CFR 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' under is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.

Sec.  63.10906  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section.
    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.
    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 means 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 test by EPA 
Method 9095B (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14). That is, if 
any portion of the material passes through and drops from the filter 
within the 5-minute test period, the material contains free liquids.
    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 and operations that only produce non-commercial 
castings are not included in this definition.
    Large iron and steel foundry means an iron and steel foundry with a 
metal melt production greater than 10,000 tons per year.
    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.
    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. 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 rates for 
each furnace is the total metal melt production of the foundry.
    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.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which 
metal scrap that is to be used as melting

[[Page 53009]]

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.
    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 iron and steel foundry means an iron and steel foundry that 
has a metal melt production of 10,000 tons per year 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).

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63

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

 Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
                     Large Iron and Steel Foundries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
           For . . .              You must . . .         following
                                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each metal melting furnace   a. Select          Sampling sites must
 subject to a PM or total        sampling port      be located at the
 metal HAP limit in Sec.         locations and      outlet of the
 63.10895(b).                    the number of      control device (or
                                 traverse points    at the outlet of the
                                 in each stack or   emissions source if
                                 duct using EPA     no control device is
                                 Method 1 or 1A     present) prior to
                                 (40 CFR part 60,   any releases to the
                                 appendix A).       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    i. Collect a minimum
                                 concentration      sample volume of 60
                                 using EPA Method   dscf of gas during
                                 5, 5B, 5D, 5F,     each PM sampling
                                 or 5I, as          run. The PM
                                 applicable or      concentration is
                                 total metal HAP    determined using
                                 concentration      only the front-half
                                 using EPA Method   (probe rinse and
                                 29 (40 CFR part    filter) of the PM
                                 60, appendix A).   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 Sec.
                                                    63.10898(d) for an
                                                    individual furnace
                                                    or Equation 2 of
                                                    Sec.   63.10898(e)
                                                    for the group of all
                                                    metal melting
                                                    furnaces at the
                                                    foundry.
2. Fugitive emissions from      Using a certified  i. The certified
 buildings or structures         observer,          observer may
 housing any iron and steel      conduct each       identify a limited
 foundry emissions sources       opacity test       number of openings
 subject to opacity limit in     according to EPA   or vents that appear
 Sec.   63.10895(f).             Method 9 (40 CFR   to have the highest
                                 part 60,           opacities and
                                 appendix A) and    perform opacity
                                 40 CFR             observations on the
                                 63.6(h)(5).        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.

[[Page 53010]]

                                                   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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also use as an alternative to EPA Method 3B (40 CFR part 60,
  appendix A), the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon
  dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME PTC
  19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
  reference--see Sec.   63.14).

    As required in Sec.  63.10898(k), you must establish operating 
limits using the procedures in the following table.

    Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Procedures for Establishing
           Operating Limits for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each wet scrubber subject to the      Using the CPMS required in Sec.
 operating limits in Sec.                   63.10897(a), measure and
 63.10895(c)(1) for pressure drop and     record the pressure drop and
 scrubber water flow rate.                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
                                          each valid sampling run in
                                          which the applicable emissions
                                          limit is met.
2. Each electrostatic precipitator       Measure and record voltage and
 subject to operating limits in Sec.      secondary current (or total
 63.10895(c)(2) for voltage and           power input) manually or by
 secondary current (or total power        CPMS every 15 minutes during
 input).                                  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.
3. Each baghouse subject to the          Measure and record the minimum
 operating limit in Sec.                  and maximum pressure drop
 63.10895(c)(3) for pressure drop.        across each baghouse cell
                                          during each PM or total metal
                                          HAP test run. Compute and
                                          record the average minimum and
                                          maximum pressure drop values
                                          for the three runs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.10900(a), you must meet each requirement in 
the following table that applies to you.

  Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63. --Applicability of General Provisions to Large Iron and Steel Foundries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applies to large iron
               Citation                        Subject             and steel foundry?          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability..........  Yes.                     .......................
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes.                     .......................
63.3.................................  Units and abbreviations  Yes.                     .......................
63.4.................................  Prohibited activities..  Yes.                     .......................
63.5.................................  Construction/            Yes.                     .......................
                                        Reconstruction.
63.6(a)-(g)..........................  Compliance with          Yes.                     .......................
                                        standards and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
63.6(h)..............................  Opacity and visible      Yes.                     .......................
                                        emissions standards.
63.6(i)(i)-(j).......................  Compliance extension     Yes.                     .......................
                                        and Presidential
                                        compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)..................  Performance testing      Yes.                     .......................
                                        requirements.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
                                        performance test dates.                           applicability and
                                                                                          performance test
                                                                                          dates.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3),(b), (c)(1)-(c)(3),  Monitoring requirements  Yes.                     .......................
 (c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(1)-
 (f)(6),(g)(1)-(g)(4).
63.8(a)(4)...........................  Additional monitoring    No.                      .......................
                                        requirements for
                                        control devices in
                                        Sec.   63.11.
63.8(c)(4)...........................  Continuous monitoring    No.                      .......................
                                        system (CMS)
                                        requirements.

[[Page 53011]]

63.8(c)(5)...........................  Continuous opacity       No.                      .......................
                                        monitoring system
                                        (COMS) Minimum
                                        Procedures.
63.8(g)(5)...........................  Data reduction.........  No.                      .......................
63.9.................................  Notification             Yes.                     .......................
                                        requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii)-          Recordkeeping and        Yes.                     .......................
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1)-(2),       reporting requirements.
 (e)(1)-(2), (f).
63.10(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15).........  Additional records for   No.                      .......................
                                        continuous monitoring
                                        systems.
63.10(c)(7)-(8)......................  Records of excess        Yes.                     .......................
                                        emissions and
                                        parameter monitoring
                                        exceedances for CMS.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Reporting opacity or     Yes.                     .......................
                                        visible emissions
                                        observations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess emissions         Yes.                     .......................
                                        reports.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  Reporting COMS data....  No.                      .......................
63.11................................  Control device           No.                      .......................
                                        requirements.
63.12................................  State authority and      Yes.                     .......................
                                        delegations.
63.13-63.16..........................  Addresses of State air   Yes.                     .......................
                                        pollution control
                                        agencies and EPA
                                        regional offices.
                                        Incorporation by
                                        reference.
                                        Availability of
                                        information and
                                        confidentiality.
                                        Performance track
                                        provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by Sec.  63.10900(b), your notification of compliance 
status must include certifications of compliance according to the 
following table.

   Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Compliance Certifications for
                     Large Iron and Steel Foundries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Your notification of compliance
                                             status required by Sec.
                                            63.9(h) must include this
               For . . .                   certification of compliance,
                                             signed by a responsible
                                                    official:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility has prepared,
 subject to scrap management              and will operate by, written
 requirements in Sec.   63.10885(a)(1)    material specifications for
 or (2).                                  metallic scrap according to
                                          Sec.   63.10885(a)(1)'' or
                                          ``This facility has prepared,
                                          and will operate by, written
                                          material specifications for
                                          general iron and steel scrap
                                          according to Sec.
                                          63.10890(a)(2).''
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility has prepared,
 subject to mercury switch removal        and will operate by, written
 requirements in Sec.   63.10885(b).      material specifications for
                                          the removal of mercury
                                          switches and a site-specific
                                          plan implementing the material
                                          specifications according to
                                          Sec.   63.10890(b)(1)'' 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 to Sec.
                                          63.10890(b)(2)'' or ``This
                                          facility complies with the
                                          alternative requirements in
                                          Sec.   63.10890(b)(3) for
                                          specialty metal scrap and will
                                          recover only materials from
                                          motor vehicles for their
                                          specialty alloy content that
                                          are not reasonably expected to
                                          contain mercury switches.''
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility complies with
 subject to Sec.   63.10886.              the no methanol requirement
                                          for the catalyst portion of
                                          each binder chemical
                                          formulation for a furfuryl
                                          alcohol warm box mold or core
                                          making line according to Sec.
                                           63.10886.''
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility operates a
 subject to Sec.   63.10895(a).           capture and collection system
                                          for each emissions source
                                          subject to this subpart
                                          according to Sec.
                                          63.10895(a).''
Each existing affected source subject    ``This facility complies with
 to Sec.   63.10895(b).                   the PM or total metal HAP
                                          emissions limit in Sec.
                                          63.10895(b) for each metal
                                          melting furnace or group of
                                          all metal melting furnaces
                                          based on a previous
                                          performance test in accordance
                                          with Sec.   63.10898(a)(1).''
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility has prepared
 subject to 63.10896(a).                  and will operate by an
                                          operation and maintenance plan
                                          according to Sec.
                                          63.10896(a).''
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility has prepared
 subject to Sec.   63.10896(c).           and will operate by an
                                          emissions averaging plan
                                          according to Sec.
                                          63.10896(c).''
Each new or existing affected source     ``This facility has prepared
 subject to Sec.   63.10897(d).           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 Sec.
                                          63.10897(d)(2).''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-17972 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P