Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/02/07/E8-1979/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-for-iron-and-steel-foundries
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 00:46:28
Document Index: 339354536

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 63', '§\u200973', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', '§\u200963', 'art 60', '§\u200963', 'art 60', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', 'art 60', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963']

A Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 02/07/2008
These final amendments are effective on February 7, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these amendments is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 7, 2008.
73 FR 7210
7210-7223 (14 pages)
FRL-8522-4
E8-1979
III. Summary of Final Amendments and Changes Made Since Proposal
A. Language of Proposed Alternative Emissions Limits
B. Mercury Emissions Limit
C. Information on Mercury Switch Removal From Scrap Suppliers
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E8-1979 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E8-1979
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
II. Background Information Start Printed Page 7211
III. Summary of the Final Amendments Made Since Proposal
Industry 331511 Iron foundries, Iron and steel plants. Automotive and large equipment manufacturers.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final amendments is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by April 7, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final amendments that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
The NESHAP for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) establishes emissions limitations and work practice requirements for the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from foundry operations. The NESHAP implements section 112(d) of the CAA by requiring all iron and steel foundries that are major sources of HAP to meet standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The compliance date for most of the subpart EEEEE requirements was April 23, 2007.
After publication of the NESHAP (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the American Foundry Society, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the Steel Founders' Society of America filed petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. The American Foundry Society and the Steel Founders' Society of America also filed petitions for review of the final rule (Steel Founders' Society of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-1190, DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-1191, DC Cir.). The concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the work practice standards for scrap management have been resolved by rule amendments issued on May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel Founders' Society of America petitioned the court for voluntary dismissal of their petition for review on March 23, 2006, and the court granted that petition on May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge to the NESHAP remaining before the court is the American Foundry Society petition for review, No. 04-1191.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a notice of a proposed settlement agreement between EPA and the petitioner (72 FR 1986, January 17, 2007) and provided a 30-day comment period which ended on February 16, 2007. The settlement agreement became final on March 9, 2007. On April 17, 2007 (72 FR 19150), we proposed rule amendments which addressed the need for alternative emissions limits for cupolas at existing foundries and clarification of other rule requirements as set forth in Attachment A to the settlement agreement. The proposed amendments also included corrections to a few minor editorial errors.
These final amendments are materially the same as the proposed amendments. EPA expects these final amendments to resolve the remaining issues raised by the petitioner.
These final amendments include two changes since proposal. The first change is in the wording used to describe the emission limit for the new compliance option for cupola melting furnaces; instead of abbreviating the limit as lb/Start Printed Page 7212ton of particulate matter (PM) (or total metal HAP), we expressly state the limit as pound of PM (or total metal HAP) per ton of metal charged. We intend this as a clarification, not as a substantive change from what we proposed. We are also correcting a publication error in the definition of “deviation” as published at 72 FR 19164. All other final amendments are exactly as proposed.
These final amendments add a new compliance option to § 73.7690(a)(2) of the NESHAP. The new alternative emissions limits for cupola metal melting furnaces at existing iron and steel foundries allows the use of control technologies that are designed on a mass removal basis rather than an outlet concentration basis. The levels of the new alternative emissions limits are the same as proposed: 0.10 pound of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pound of total HAP per ton of metal charged. In response to public comment, we have revised the manner in which the emissions limits are stated in the rule for clarity. We have also revised associated compliance provisions in §§ 63.7732(b)(6) and (c)(6), 63.7734(a)(2)(iii) and (iv), and 63.7743(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to refer to the new alternative limits in terms of pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged or pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged instead of lb/ton of PM or lb/ton of total metal HAP, respectively.
These final amendments specify that the opacity limitations apply only to buildings that house iron and steel foundry emissions sources. If nonfoundry operations are housed in the same building as the foundry operations, the foundry must comply with the opacity limits for that building.
These final amendments replace the reference to test conditions (“as determined when scrubbing with fresh acid solution”) with the phrase “according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7732(g)” since § 63.7732(g) contains the requirement to conduct the test when scrubbing with fresh acid solution.
These final amendments delete the word “standard” from 40 CFR 63.7690(b)(1) to clarify that capture and collection systems are required for emissions sources subject to an emissions limit but not for emissions sources subject to work practice standards.
These final amendments specify that “chlorinated” plastics are to be removed from the scrap material (instead of all plastic). These final amendments also revise the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2) for the owner or operator to obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had the switches removed. These final amendments include an alternative procedure that allows the plant to document their attempts to obtain a copy of the procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing their area. We note, however, that under 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2) the materials acquisition program must specify that the scrap supplier remove accessible mercury switches from the trunks and hoods of any automotive bodies contained in the scrap in addition to accessible lead components such as batteries and wheel weights. It is incumbent on the foundry owner or operator to communicate these specifications to their scrap suppliers.
The existing rule requires the owner or operator to install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater according to 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(1) or charge only certain materials according to 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2). These final amendments revise the language of § 63.7700(e)(1) to clarify that foundries are not required to install gas-fired preheaters when not necessary for foundry operations. It was not our intent to mandate installation of preheaters, but rather to establish requirements for those existing facilities that use scrap preheaters in lieu of selecting the option in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2). Therefore, these final amendments clarify § 63.7700(e)(1) by deleting the word “install”. Instead, these final amendments require the owner or operator to operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the flame directly contacts the scrap charged.
These final amendments clarify that the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2) applies to each capture and collection system and control device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP, triethylamine (TEA), or volatile organic hazardous pollutants (VOHAP) emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a).
The existing NESHAP establishes PM emissions limits and alternative emissions limits expressed in total metal HAP for cupolas and other foundry processes. These final amendments clarify our original intent to allow foundries to demonstrate compliance with any of the applicable alternative emissions limitations that are provided for a specific emissions source. When multiple alternative emissions limitations are provided for a specific emissions source, iron and steel foundries can demonstrate initial compliance with any of the alternative limits; they are not required to comply with all of the alternative emissions limits at any one time. These final amendments also clarify a facility's ability to change their selected compliance alternative and the procedures needed to effect that change. However, regarding continuous compliance, the facility is expected to continuously comply with the alternative emissions limit that was selected as their compliance option as demonstrated in their most recent performance test. The facility may choose to alter their selected alternative but must continue to comply with the previously selected alternative until they successfully demonstrate compliance with the new alternative emissions limitation.
We are also finalizing requirements for determining initial compliance for cupola melting furnaces at existing iron and steel foundries that are subject to the new mass rate emissions limit. The final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) include new equations for determining PM or total metal HAP emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton of metal charged format. Other amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) clarify test methods source sampling requirements.
Section 63.7734 of the NESHAP requires iron and steel foundries to demonstrate initial compliance with PM emissions limits by conducting a performance test for each process unit according to the procedures in 40 CFR 63.7732. One petitioner pointed out that a common emissions control system may serve two similar or identical cupolas or serve multiple furnaces or process units. According to the petitioner, a requirement for separate tests of the control device while the Start Printed Page 7213emissions sources are operating is redundant and imposes unnecessary costs because the control device should perform the same on each identical furnace. These final amendments resolve the petitioner's concern by adding a new provision to the performance test requirements. As proposed, the final amendment requires foundries to submit a site-specific test plan for the situation described by the petitioner or other situations not expressly considered in 40 CFR 63.7734. The site-specific test plan, which is subject to approval by the Administrator, will explain the procedures that would be followed during the test, such as operation of the unit or units at the maximum operating condition of the control system. The Administrator or delegated authority will determine on a case-by-case basis if one representative furnace/control device configuration may be tested.
As proposed, we are clarifying the sampling instructions in 40 CFR 63.7732(c)(4) and (5) to state that the initial compliance demonstrations for electric arc metal melting furnaces, electric induction metal melting furnaces, and scrap preheaters must be conducted under normal production conditions. These final amendments require sampling during normal operating conditions, which may include charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging, and tapping (for a furnace) or charging, heating, and discharging (for a scrap preheater).
As proposed, these final amendments remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7732(c)(2) for a minimum sample volume for test runs by EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) because the method already includes such a requirement.
Section 63.7732(d) of the existing NESHAP establishes the requirements for opacity tests. These final amendments instruct the certified observer how to take opacity readings by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for a building that has many openings. As proposed, these final amendments allow the observer to take readings from a limited number of openings or vents that appear to have the highest opacities instead of making observations for each opening or vent from the building or structure. Alternatively, a single observation for the entire building is allowed if the fugitive release points afford such an observation. These final amendments also revise the language of 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(2) to clarify that opacity tests are to be conducted during PM performance tests, but that PM performance tests are not required to occur during the semiannual opacity tests.
Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the existing NESHAP requires the use of EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the TEA concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core-making line. As proposed, these final amendments allow NIOSH Method 2010, “Amines, Aliphatic” (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) as an alternative to EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) provided the performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied. Method 2010 is included in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (4th edition, NIOSH Publication 94-113, August 1994). The manual is available from the Government Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), NTIS publication No. PB95154191. The NIOSH method may also be found on the NIOSH Web site at the following address: www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​nmam/​method-4000.html.
As proposed, these final amendments clarify the procedures for establishing control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7733(b) through (d) by deleting the reference to the 3-hour average from the test procedures. These final amendments specify that the owner or operator is to compute and record the average operating parameter value for each valid sampling run in which the applicable limit is met.
As proposed, these final amendments revise the requirements for repeat performance in 40 CFR 63.7731(a) to clarify that demonstrating compliance by one method does not preclude a plant from demonstrating compliance using an alternative method at a later date. A plant may elect to demonstrate compliance with an alternative emissions limit during the repeat performance tests conducted at least every 5 years. Furthermore, a plant may elect to conduct a performance test earlier than 5 years in order to change an operating limit or to demonstrate compliance with a different alternative emissions limit. A test conducted for the purpose of changing operating limits is subject to notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.7750(d).
Section 63.7740(b) of the existing NESHAP requires a bag leak detection system for each negative pressure baghouse and for each positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack where the baghouse is applied to meet any PM or total metal HAP emissions limitation in subpart EEEEE. This provision also requires inspection of each baghouse according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7740(b)(1) through (8). As proposed, these final amendments include monitoring requirements for the visual inspection of positive pressure baghouses that are not equipped with a stack. As proposed, these final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740(b) clarify the text to ensure that the requirements in this paragraph for installing and using a bag leak detection system apply only to negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses equipped with a stack. The inspection requirements are separated and placed in a new paragraph (c) and clarified to state that the inspection requirements apply to each baghouse regardless of type. These final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740 also renumber the paragraphs which follow new paragraph (c). Similar clarifications are made to the requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance in 40 CFR 63.7743(c).
Section 63.7736(c) of the existing NESHAP instructs the owner or operator how to demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements for bag leak detection systems. Under 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1), the owner or operator must submit the bag leak detection system monitoring plan to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7710(b). As proposed, these final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1) revise this provision to clarify that submission of the monitoring plan independent of the operation and maintenance plan is not necessary. Our intent is to include the bag leak detection system information in the operation and maintenance plan to streamline the approval process and avoid the administrative costs associated with a separate submission. Start Printed Page 7214In addition, having one integrated plan will provide a centralized reference tool for control device operation and maintenance requirements.
As proposed, these final amendments revise the requirements for operation and maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems to more clearly describe the inspection requirements. Under the operation and maintenance requirements for flow measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator must perform monthly inspections of all flow sensor components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. These final amendments change this provision to require a monthly visual inspection of all components, including all electrical and mechanical connections for proper functioning. The same changes are made to the monthly inspection requirements for other types of monitoring devices in §§ 63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi), (c)(2)(iv), (d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv).
As proposed, these final amendments also revise the requirement for pressure measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a “daily check of the pressure tap for pluggage.” We are requiring a daily check for pluggage when using a regular pressure tap and a monthly check when using a non-clogging pressure tap. These final amendments also clarify the requirements for pressure measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the use of a manometer or equivalent device for calibrations.
As proposed, these final amendments clarify two of the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4). The requirement for the annual quantity of chemical binder or coating materials used to make molds and cores is revised to require the annual quantity of chemical binder or coating materials used to coat or make molds and cores. (We inadvertently omitted the word “coat” from the original rule language.) The final requirement for records of the annual quantity of HAP used states that records are required of the annual quantity of HAP used in these chemical binder or coating materials at the foundry, as calculated from the recorded quantities and chemical compositions (from Material Data Safety Sheet or other documentation). This final amendment clarifies that the HAP records requirement is specific to the chemicals used in the mold and core-making and coating operations and not to other HAP materials used at the foundry such as solvents used to clean or degrease equipment.
These final amendments to the reporting requirements allow foundries to report the results of the semiannual opacity tests within the semiannual reports rather than having to submit these semiannual documents separately. Other final amendments to the reporting requirements clarify the requirements for an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report by adding the same language used in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). These final amendments require an immediate report if a foundry has a startup, shutdown, or malfunction and exceeds any applicable emissions limitation in 40 CFR 63.7690.
We are amending the definition of the term “Deviation” in 40 CFR 63.7765 to clarify that the enforcement authority determines if a deviation is a violation. The proposed amendment appeared at 72 FR 19164: however, due to a publication error, the new language was added after the first sentence of the original definition, rather than at the end. In these final amendments, we are correcting the placement of the new language.
As proposed, we are adding definitions of the terms “off blast” and “on blast” to 40 CFR 63.7765. The term “off blast” is defined as those periods of cupola operation when the cupola is not actively being used to produce molten metal. Off-blast conditions include cupola startup procedures as defined in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Off-blast conditions also include idling conditions when the blast air is turned off or down to the point that the cupola does not produce additional molten metal. The term “on blast” means those periods of cupola operation when combustion (blast) air is introduced to the cupola furnace and the furnace is capable of producing molten metal. On blast conditions are characterized by both blast air introduction and molten metal production.
As proposed, these final amendments revise the definition of “total metal HAP” to specify the analytes to be included and how non-detect values are to be used in calculating the total metal HAP quantity. The definition of “total metal HAP” is the sum of the concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only the measured concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations exceeding one-half of the quantification limit of the analytical method are used in the sum. If any of the analytes are not detected or are detected at concentrations less than 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 for this subpart.
As proposed, we are also clarifying the definition of “scrap preheater” to differentiate scrap dryers that are used solely to remove moisture from the scrap metal from scrap preheaters. The revised definition of “scrap preheater” states that scrap dryers, which are used solely to remove water from metal scrap that does not contain any volatile impurities or other tramp materials, are not considered to be scrap preheaters for purposes of this subpart.
As proposed, we are revising the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 63.7681 to reference the definition of “major source” in 40 CFR 63.2. This amendment clarifies that when we refer to a “major source” of hazardous air pollutants in 40 CFR 63.7681, we are referring to the definition of major source in 40 CFR 63.2, and not, for example, to the definition of major source in 40 CFR 51.166.
As proposed, we are correcting a grammatical error in 40 CFR 63.7710(b), which should refer to an emissions source subject to a (rather than “an”) PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). A comma is added to 40 CFR 63.7734(a)(11). The words “as possible” are added to 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i). The final amendments also correct a misspelling of the word “calendar” in 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii).
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed alternative standards for PM or total metal HAP and conforming amendments. However, the commenter believed that the wording of the proposed limit for total metal HAP is ambiguous even though the meaning is clear in context. According to the commenter, the proposed limit for total metal HAP (0.008 lb/ton of total metal Start Printed Page 7215HAP) could be construed to mean that the standard is 0.008 pounds of some unspecified substance per ton of total metal HAP emitted. The commenter recommended that EPA clarify the language to read “0.008 pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged” which would be consistent with the language in § 63.7690(a)(ii) for the proposed alternative PM limit.
Response: Section 63.7690(a)(2)(ii) of the proposed amendments establishes the alternative limit for PM as 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; the lb/ton abbreviation is then used in § 63.7690(a)(2)(iv) for the total metal HAP limit. While we agree with the commenter that the meaning is clear in context, we have revised the language for the total metal HAP limit to read according to the commenter's suggestion. For additional clarity, we have revised the wording of both limits when they appear in conforming amendments to read “pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged” and “pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.”
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA adopt stand-alone mercury emissions standards similar to those in New Jersey.[1] The commenter explained that the rule requires iron and steel melters (at both foundries and steel production plants) to meet a mercury emissions limit of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or, in the alternative, reduce mercury emissions by 75 percent using a mercury control apparatus. The emission limit, which becomes effective in January 2010, can be achieved through source separation measures and, if necessary, additional exhaust controls. According to the commenter, the emissions limit determines the success of the source separation program and the need for add-on mercury control measures on the melter exhaust. The commenter stated that one foundry had recently installed an activated carbon injection system for mercury control and a baghouse serving the cupola and that test results show greater than 90 percent mercury control and emissions less than 3 mg/ton. According to the commenter, other facilities with existing fabric filter control are testing carbon injection and have reported compliance with the mercury emissions limit but have not submitted formal test results.
Response: As described in the preamble to the final NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the control systems used at iron and steel foundries at the time the NESHAP was developed were not effective in reducing mercury emissions. The pollution prevention measure of removing mercury switches from automotive scrap was determined to be a cost-effective “beyond the MACT floor” requirement and was included as a requirement in the final NESHAP as part of the scrap selection and inspection program. The final NESHAP was projected to reduce mercury emissions by 2,800 pounds per year at a cost of $3.6 million per year (which includes increased cost of scrap for removing the mercury switches). We recognize that there are other mercury-containing devices in automotive scrap so that the pollution prevention program required by the final NESHAP does not eliminate all mercury from the scrap. At the time the NESHAP was developed, we considered requirements for more stringent mercury reduction requirements, either through additional scrap inspection and selection inspection requirements specific to other mercury-containing devices or through innovative mercury controls. Based on the small quantities of mercury in these other devices, these options were determined to be cost-ineffective.
A re-evalulation of the MACT floor for the Iron and Steel NESHAP in light of new control systems added to iron and steel foundries since the NESHAP was first promulgated is outside the scope of the current package of amendments. We did not include or take comment on a separate mercury limit in our April 17, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Therefore, we are not including specific emission limits for mercury in the final amendments. A technology review of the MACT standards is required by the CAA eight years after promulgation. These newly installed mercury controls will be considered in detail during this technology review.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should not revise § 63.7700(b)(2) to eliminate the requirement that facilities buy scrap only from suppliers willing to provide a copy of their procedures for ensuring that mercury switches are removed from automobile bodies that they supply. The commenter believed that no supplier will do this unless foundries require it because suppliers that do provide a copy of their procedures will be at a disadvantage to suppliers that either do not remove the mercury switches or are unwilling to document their removal procedures. According to the commenter, under the proposed amendments, suppliers would not be penalized as they are under the existing rule.
The commenter stated that this proposed amendment increases mercury emissions and that EPA did not provide an estimate of the health, environmental, and economic impacts of the increase. The commenter also claimed that because of limitations currently enforced on some sources, the proposed amendment reduces the stringency of the rule below the MACT floor for new sources and possibly for existing sources. According to the commenter, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the CAA.
Response: The amendment does not absolve the iron and steel foundry from the responsibility to use automotive scrap that has had accessible mercury switches removed. In previous amendments to the NESHAP (70 FR 29400, May 20, 2005), we included provisions for foundries to perform inspections at the scrap supplier. Thus, the foundry should be able to verify whether the supplier in fact removes accessible mercury switches. The reason for the amendment is to clarify that EPA is not imposing a regulatory burden on the scrap supplier through this rule. EPA is not requiring scrap suppliers to provide the foundry with written procedures for ensuring the mercury switches are removed. Nevertheless, because we require foundries to purchase only automotive scrap that has had accessible mercury switches removed from the trunks and hoods of automobile bodies, a foundry is much more likely to do business with a scrap supplier that supplies written procedures than with one that does not. It is incumbent on the foundry to document their attempt to obtain written procedures and to ensure, through site inspections or other means, that any automotive scrap that they purchase from their suppliers has had accessible mercury switches removed from the trunks and hoods.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Start Printed Page 7216October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. These final amendments add a new compliance alternative, allow a new alternative test method, and clarify requirements in the existing rule. One amendment to the baghouse monitoring requirements clarifies our original intent to require inspections of positive pressure baghouses not equipped with a stack. No new burden is associated with this requirement because the burden was included in the approved information collection request (ICR) for the existing rule. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0543, EPA ICR number 2096.03. A copy of the OMB-approved ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of these final amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS codes 331511, 331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of these final amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
There would not be any adverse impacts on any source (including any small entity) as a result of the final amendments because the final amendments do not create any new requirements or burdens that were not already included in the economic impact assessment for the existing rule. These final amendments relieve regulatory burden for all entities as a result of the operational flexibility afforded by the alternative compliance option, alternative test method, and provisions allowing plants to combine multiple reports into a single submission. We have therefore concluded that these final amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.
EPA has determined that these final amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The final amendments are expected to result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that these final amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. These final amendments Start Printed Page 7217contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and impose no obligations upon them.
These final amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these final amendments.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” These final amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these final amendments.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. These final amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
These final amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
These final amendments involve technical standards. Therefore the Agency conducted a search to identify potential VCS in addition to the EPA and alternative method. However, we identified no such standards and none were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore EPA has decided to use an alternative methodology, the NIOSH Method 2010, “Amines, Aliphatic” (incorporated by reference in § 63.14) for EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the TEA concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core making line provided the performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied.
For the methods required or referenced by these final amendments, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.
EPA has determined that these final amendments will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final amendments in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final amendments will be effective on February 7, 2008.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
(2) The following method as published in the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) test method compendium, “NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods”, NIOSH publication no. 94-113, Fourth Edition, August 15, 1994.
(i) NIOSH Method 2010, “Amines, Aliphatic,” Issue 2, August 15, 1994, IBR approved for § 63.7732(g)(1)(v) of Subpart EEEEE of this part.
(iv) 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.
(2) * * * You must either obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had mercury switches removed, as applicable, or document your attempts to obtain a copy of these procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing your area.
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a written Start Printed Page 7219operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection system and control device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in § 63.7690(a). * * *
b. Redesignating Equations 1 through 5 as Equations 3 through 7;
c. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5) and adding paragraph (b)(6) containing Equation 1;
d. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(5) and adding paragraph (c)(6) containing Equation 2;
e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph (d)(2);
f. Revising paragraph (e)(3);
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and (f)(3);
h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2), and (g)(4);
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and
j. Adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
(6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or scrap preheater. For a cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and steel foundry that is subject to the PM emissions limit in § 63.7690(a)(ii), calculate the PM emissions rate in pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged using Equation 1 of this section:
(6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or scrap preheater during each performance test run and calculate the total metal HAP emissions rate (pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged) using Equation 2 of this section:
(d) To determine compliance with the opacity limit in § 63.7690(a)(7) for fugitive emissions from buildings or structures housing any iron and steel foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, follow the procedures Start Printed Page 7220in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(v) Method 18 to determine the TEA concentration. Alternatively, you may use NIOSH Method 2010 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) to determine the TEA concentration provided the performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied. The sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that either the TEA concentration in the field sample is at least 5 times the limit of detection for the analytical method or the test results calculated using the laboratory's reported analytical detection limit for the specific field samples are less than 1/5 of the applicable emissions limit. When using Method 18, the adsorbent tube approach, as described in section 8.2.4 of Method 18, may be required to achieve the necessary analytical detection limits. The sampling time must be at least 1 hour in all cases.
(iii) The average PM mass emissions rate, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; or
(iv) The average total metal HAP mass emissions rate, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and (c)(2)(iv);
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning. Start Printed Page 7222
(iii) Maintaining the average PM mass emissions rate at or below 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; or
(iv) Maintaining the average total metal HAP mass emissions rate at or below 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart Start Printed Page 7223including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation (including operating limits), work practice standard, or operation and maintenance requirement;
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation (including operating limits) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
A deviation is not always a violation. The determination of whether a deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to the discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the standards.
1. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection mercury regulations for iron and steel scrap melting specify that mercury emissions from each melter shall not exceed 35 megagrams per ton of steel produced. Alternatively, mercury emissions as measured at the exit of the mercury control apparatus must be reduced by at least 75 percent (N.J.A.C. 7:27-27.6). These rules have been upheld by the Appellate Division of the State Superior Court.
[FR Doc. E8-1979 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]