# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE7-17972 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** September 17, 2007 - **Citation:** 72 FR 52984 ## Text 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: • 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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 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 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 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 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: Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry 331511 Iron foundries. Iron and steel plants. Automotive and large equipment manufacturers. 331512 Steel investment foundries. 331513 Steel foundries (except investment). 1 North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.10880 of subpart ZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA? Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Option Total capital cost, $ (millions) Total annual cost, $/yr (millions) Emissions reduction, (tons PM/yr) Cost effectiveness ($/ton PM) Overall Incremental Number of foundries impacted greater than 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 Table 1. National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Goundries with Annual Melt Produciton of 10,000 tpy or Less 1 Option Total capital cost, $ (millions) Total annual cost, $/yr (millions) Emission reductions, (tons metal HAP/year) Cost effectiveness ($/ton mental HAO) Overall Incremental Number of foundaries impacted greater than 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. Table 2.—National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Foundries With Annual Melt Production Greater Than 10,000 tpy 1 Option Total capital cost, $ (millions) Total annual cost, $/yr (millions) Emissions reduction, (tons PM/yr) Cost effectiveness ($/ton PM) Overall Incremental Number of foundries impacted greater than 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 Table 2.—National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Founries with Annual Melt Production Greater than 10,000 TYP 1 Option Total capital cost, $ (millions) Total annual cost, $/yr (millions) Emissions reduction, (tons metal HAP/yr) Cost effectiveness ($/ton metal HAP) Overall Incremental Number of foundries impacted greater than 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 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 $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) 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 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 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 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, 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: § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. (i) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), Table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, and Table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part. (k) * * * (1) * * * (iii) Method 9095B, “Paint Filter Liquids Test,” dated November 2004 and in Update III, IBR approved for §§ 63.7700(b) and 63.7765 of subpart EEEEE of this part and §§ 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? 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 § 63.10880 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron and steel foundry that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is each iron and steel foundry. (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before September 17, 2007. (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 17, 2007. (c) On and after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , if your iron and steel foundry becomes a major source as defined in § 63.2, you must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. (d) This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act. (e) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. (f) You must determine the initial applicability of the requirements of this subpart to a small foundry or a large foundry based on your facility's metal melt production for calendar year 2008. If the metal melt production for calendar year 2008 is 10,000 tons or less, your area source is a small foundry. If your metal melt production for calendar year 2008 is greater than 10,000 tons, your area source is a large foundry. You must submit a written notification to the Administrator that identifies your area source as a small foundry or a large foundry no later than 1 year after the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register . § 63.10881 What are my compliance dates? (a) If you ow [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE7-17972. Public record. Not legal advice.