FR Doc E7-17972

[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 so