National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries, 19150-19164 [E7-7203]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19150-19164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7203]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034; FRL-8299-8]
RIN 2060-AM85


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants for iron and steel foundries. The proposed 
amendments add alternative compliance options for cupolas at existing 
foundries and clarify several provisions to increase operational 
flexibility and improve understanding of the final rule requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 17, 2007, unless a 
public hearing is requested by April 27, 2007. If a hearing is 
requested on the proposed rule, written comments must be received by 
June 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0034, 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) 566-1741.
     Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     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-
2002-0034. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://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

[[Page 19151]]

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 National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, 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) 541-5289; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

 A. Does this action apply to me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          331511  Iron foundries. Iron
                                                  and steel plants.
                                                  Automotive and large
                                                  equipment
                                                  manufacturers.
                                         331512  Steel investment
                                                  foundries.
                                         331513  Steel foundries (except
                                                  investment).
Federal government.............  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 63.7682 
of subpart EEEEE (NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries). 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 confidential business 
information (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-2002-0034. 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 the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 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: https://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 the proposed amendments by April 27, 2007, we will hold a 
public hearing on May 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.

E. How is this document organized?

    The supplementary 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?
    E. How is this document organized?
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. Emissions Limitations
    B. Work Practice Standards
    C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    D. Compliance With Alternative Emissions Limits
    E. Monitoring Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    G. Definitions
    H. Applicability
    I. Editorial Corrections
IV. 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

[[Page 19152]]

    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

 II. Background Information

    The national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) 
establish emissions limitations and work practice requirements for the 
control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from foundry operations. The 
NESHAP implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring 
all iron and steel foundries that are major sources of HAP to meet 
standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). The compliance date for most of the subpart EEEEE 
requirements is April 23, 2007.
    After publication of the NESHAP (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the 
American Foundry Society, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and 
the Steel Founders' Society of America filed petitions for 
reconsideration of the final rule. The American Foundry Society and the 
Steel Founders' Society of America also filed petitions for review of 
the final rule (Steel Founders' Society of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-
1190, DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-1191, 
DC Cir.). The concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the work 
practice standards for scrap management have been resolved by rule 
amendments issued on May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel Founders' 
Society of America petitioned the court for voluntary dismissal of 
their petition for review on March 23, 2006, and the court granted that 
petition on May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge to the NESHAP 
remaining before the court is the American Foundry Society petition for 
review, No. 04-1191. This proposed rule addresses the need for 
alternative emissions limits for cupolas at existing foundries and 
clarification of other rule requirements. EPA anticipates that these 
proposed amendments will resolve the remaining issues raised by the 
petitioners.
    These amendments are set out in Attachment A to a settlement 
agreement between EPA and the petitioners that became final on March 9, 
2007. In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a 
notice of the proposed settlement agreement (72 FR 1986, January 17, 
2007) and provided a 30-day comment period which ended on February 16, 
2007. The settlement agreement requires that the EPA Administrator sign 
proposed amendments no later than April 9, 2007.
    In addition, since publication of the final rule, we have 
identified a few minor editorial errors requiring correction. Rather 
than publish a separate notice of corrections, we are including those 
changes along with the proposed amendments.

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments

A. Emissions Limitations

1. New Compliance Options for Cupola Metal Melting Furnaces
    Section 63.7690(a)(2) of the NESHAP establishes HAP emissions 
limits for cupola metal melting furnaces at existing iron and steel 
foundries. The owner or operator may elect to comply with a limit of 
0.006 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) of particulate 
matter (PM) or 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP. The PM emissions 
limits for cupolas were based on an evaluation of the average 
performance achieved by the top 12 percent of the cupola emissions 
sources (i.e., the ``MACT floor''). Because baghouses (the technology 
on which the MACT floor performance was based) are generally designed 
to meet a specified outlet concentration limit and because EPA Method 5 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) directly determines concentration, a 
concentration-based emissions limit was selected for inclusion in the 
rule. The alternative concentration-based emissions limit expressed as 
total metal HAP provided equivalent metal HAP emissions reductions as 
the MACT floor PM emissions limit. We documented the determination of 
these emissions limits in a memorandum titled, ``Determination of the 
MACT Floor Metal HAP Emission Limits for Iron and Steel Foundries'', 
which is included in the docket for the final rule (Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR- 2002-0034-0239).
    As part of our discussions with the petitioners on technical 
issues, we recognized the need for an equivalent mass-based emissions 
limit for cupola melting furnaces to allow the use of control 
technologies that are designed on a mass removal basis rather than an 
outlet concentration basis. We reviewed the data previously identified 
for the top 12 percent of cupola emissions sources as well as the 6th 
percentile unit on which the promulgated emissions limit was based. 
These data indicate that the equivalent mass PM emissions rate for a 
baghouse operating at the MACT floor emissions limit for cupolas at 
existing sources (0.006 gr/dscf) is 0.10 pound per ton (lb/ton) of 
metal charged. In terms of total metal HAP, the MACT-equivalent mass 
emissions rate for cupolas at existing sources is 0.008 lb/ton. We 
documented the determination of these mass-based emissions limits in a 
memorandum titled, ``Determination of a MACT Floor Equivalent Emission 
Limit for Cupola Melting Furnaces,'' which is included in the docket 
for this rulemaking (Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034-0223). Therefore, 
we are proposing to amend the emissions limits in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(2) 
for cupolas at existing sources to add alternative limits of 0.10 lb/
ton of PM or 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP.
2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit
    Some of the petitioners requested that we revise the opacity limit 
for fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7) to clarify that the 
limit does not apply to fugitive emissions that are unrelated to 
emissions sources subject to the NESHAP. According to the petitioners, 
the rule could be interpreted to apply to fugitive emissions from 
foundry-related operations not subject to the rule or operations in 
other source categories that may be co-located in foundries.
    Some foundries are co-located with other manufacturing processes 
that are housed in separate buildings. We did not intend to set 
emissions limitations for these co-located operations. Therefore, we 
are clarifying that the opacity emissions limitations apply only to 
buildings that house iron and steel foundry emissions sources. If 
nonfoundry operations are housed in the same building as the foundry 
operations, the foundry must comply with the opacity limits for that 
building.
3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit
    In response to the petitioners' suggestion, we are proposing to 
clarify the language of the emissions limit for triethylamine (TEA) in 
Sec.  63.7690(a)(11) by replacing the reference to test conditions 
(``as determined when scrubbing with fresh acid solution'') with the 
phrase ``according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7732(g)'' since Sec.  63.7732(g) contains the requirement to conduct 
the test when scrubbing with fresh acid solution.
    Although the existing NESHAP primarily address the control of HAP 
metals, there are potential opportunities for foundries to reduce 
emissions of other HAP such as TEA through the use of low-HAP binders 
and other pollution prevention (P2) techniques. Current information 
indicates that these P2 methods show promise, but they are not 
appropriate for all foundries or casting methods. And, in some cases, 
it can be quite costly for the foundry to incorporate P2 methods into 
their

[[Page 19153]]

overall process. EPA encourages foundries to explore the various P2 
options available and use them when appropriate and cost-effective to 
further reduce their HAP footprint.

B. Work Practice Standards

1. Capture and Collection Systems
    Section 63.7690(b)(1) of the NESHAP requires the owner or operator 
of an iron or steel foundry to install, operate, and maintain a capture 
and collection system for all emissions sources subject to a limit or 
standard for volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) or TEA 
in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(8) through (11). One petitioner was concerned that 
this provision could be construed to require capture and collection 
systems for electric arc furnaces and electric induction furnaces, even 
though these furnaces are not directly subject to a VOHAP limit. 
According to the petitioner, the scrap certification and inspection/
selection requirements in 40 CFR 63.7700 could be understood as work 
practice standards to limit organics from entering electric arc 
furnaces and electric induction furnaces. It could be inferred that a 
``standard'' limiting VOHAP does exist for these furnaces and 
therefore, a capture and collection system is required. A similar 
concern exists for foundries that decide to meet the work practice 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(e) instead of the VOHAP emissions limit 
in 40 CFR 7690(a)(9). The petitioner requests that EPA confirm that the 
scrap certification and inspection/selection requirements are not 
considered VOHAP work practice standards which would necessitate a 
capture and collection system.
    It is our intent that the requirements for capture and collection 
systems apply to emissions sources subject to an emissions limit but 
not to an emissions source subject to work practice standards. A 
capture and control system that routes emissions to an add-on control 
device is not needed because the work practice acts to reduce or 
prevent the release of emissions. In response to the petitioner's 
concerns, we are proposing to clarify the requirement in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(1) by deleting the reference to ``standard''.
2. Scrap Management
    Section 63.7700(a) of the NESHAP establishes work practice 
standards to minimize the organics and HAP metals in charge materials. 
The owner or operator must comply with certification requirements in 
Sec.  63.7700(b) or operate according to a scrap selection and 
inspection plan required in Sec.  63.7700(c). One commenter requested 
that the work practice standards specify that the requirements for the 
certification and the written plan specify ``chlorinated'' plastics. 
Plastics were included in the list of undesirable scrap material 
primarily because certain types of plastics, such as polyvinyl 
chloride, could lead to the formation of dioxins. We did not intend to 
make certain metal components, such as Quiet Steel([reg]), that contain 
some plastics that cannot be removed from the scrap unrecyclable. 
Recycling these materials in foundries is environmentally preferable to 
landfilling these materials. Therefore, to clarify our intent, we now 
specify that it is ``chlorinated'' plastics that are to be removed from 
the scrap material.
    The petitioner also objected to the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.7700(c)(2) for the owner or operator to obtain and maintain onsite a 
copy of the procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing 
accessible mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that 
have had the switches removed. According to the petitioner, it is 
difficult for some plants to obtain such written procedures from scrap 
suppliers. In this case, the plant should be able to document their 
attempts to obtain a copy of the procedures. The proposed amendments 
include an alternative procedure that allows the plant to document 
their attempts to obtain a copy of the procedures from the scrap 
suppliers servicing their area. We note, however, that under 40 CFR 
63.7700(c)(2) the materials acquisition program must specify that the 
scrap supplier remove accessible mercury switches from the trunks and 
hoods of any automotive bodies contained in the scrap in addition to 
accessible lead components such as batteries and wheel weights. It is 
incumbent on the foundry owner or operator to communicate these 
specifications to their scrap suppliers.
3. Scrap Preheaters
    Section 63.7700(e) of the rule establishes requirements for scrap 
preheaters at an existing iron and steel foundry. The owner or operator 
must install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater according to 
40 CFR 63.7700(e)(1) or charge only certain materials according to 40 
CFR 63.7700(e)(2). One petitioner was concerned that the language in 40 
CFR 63.7700(e)(1) could be interpreted to require foundries to install 
gas-fired preheaters, even when not necessary for foundry operations. 
It was not our intent to mandate installation of preheaters, but rather 
to establish requirements for those existing facilities that use scrap 
preheaters in lieu of selecting the option in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2). 
Therefore, we are proposing to clarify Sec.  63.7700(e)(1) by deleting 
the word ``install''. Instead, the owner or operator would be required 
to operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the flame directly 
contacts the scrap charged.

C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements

    One petitioner suggested that the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7710(b) 
for an operation and maintenance plan would be better understood if it 
clarified the emissions sources subject to the plan requirements. The 
proposed amendments clarify that the requirement applies to each 
capture and collection system and control device for an emissions 
source subject to a PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in 40 
CFR 63.7690(a).

D. Compliance With Alternative Emissions Limits

    The existing NESHAP establishes PM emissions limits and alternative 
emissions limits expressed in total metal HAP for cupolas and other 
foundry processes. In response to requests by the petitioners, we are 
proposing amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732, 40 CFR 63.7690, and 40 CFR 
63.7734 to clarify our original intent to allow foundries to 
demonstrate compliance with any of the applicable alternative emissions 
limitations that are provided for a specific emissions source. When 
multiple alternative emissions limitations are provided for a specific 
emissions source, iron and steel foundries can demonstrate initial 
compliance with any of the alternative limits; they are not required to 
comply with all of the alternative emissions limits at any one time. We 
are also clarifying a facility's ability to change their selected 
compliance alternative and the procedures needed to effect that change. 
However, regarding continuous compliance, the facility is expected to 
continuously comply with the alternative emissions limit that was 
selected as their compliance option as demonstrated in their most 
recent performance test. The facility may choose to alter their 
selected alternative but must continue to comply with the previously 
selected alternative until they successfully demonstrate compliance 
with the new alternative emissions limitation.
    We are also proposing requirements for determining initial 
compliance for cupola melting furnaces at existing iron and steel 
foundries that are subject to the new mass rate emissions limit. 
Revisions to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) would include new equations for

[[Page 19154]]

determining PM or total metal HAP emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton 
format. Other amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) would clarify 
test method and emissions source sampling requirements.
1. Single Performance Test for Control Devices Serving Multiple Units
    Section 63.7734 of the NESHAP requires iron and steel foundries to 
demonstrate initial compliance with PM emissions limits by conducting a 
performance test for each process unit according to the procedures in 
40 CFR 63.7732. One petitioner pointed out that a common emissions 
control system may serve two similar or identical cupolas or serve 
multiple furnaces or process units. According to the petitioner, a 
requirement for separate tests of the control device while the 
emissions sources are operating is redundant and imposes unnecessary 
costs because the control device should perform the same on each 
identical furnace.
    We acknowledge that there are certain control device configurations 
that we cannot fully address within the rule requirements. These 
situations are best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, we 
are proposing to resolve the petitioner's concern by adding a new 
provision to the performance test requirements. The proposed amendment 
requires foundries to submit a site-specific test plan for the 
situation described by the petitioner or other situations not expressly 
considered in 40 CFR 63.7734. The site-specific test plan, which is 
subject to approval by the Administrator, would explain the procedures 
that would be followed during the test, such as operation of the unit 
or units at the maximum operating condition of the control system. The 
Administrator or delegated authority would determine on a case-by-case 
basis if one representative furnace/control device configuration may be 
tested.
2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc Furnaces, Electric Induction 
Furnaces, and Scrap Preheaters
    One petitioner objected to the sampling instructions in 40 CFR 
63.7732(c)(4) and (5) for electric arc and electric induction metal 
melting furnaces (when metal is being melted) and scrap preheaters 
(when scrap is being preheated) as inappropriate restrictions on 
performance testing. Many operations that occur during the furnace 
melting process are considered part of typical operation. Scrap 
preheaters operate on a batch basis and do not heat scrap for extended 
periods of time. It is not practical to start and stop tests for these 
emissions sources over the course of a heat until the required sampling 
time is accumulated. According to the petitioner, testing during all 
phases of operations is consistent with the requirement in Sec.  
63.6(f)(2)(iii)(A) of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which state that a performance test must be conducted under 
representative operating conditions of the source.
    In response to these concerns, we are proposing to clarify that the 
initial compliance demonstrations for electric arc metal melting 
furnaces, electric induction metal melting furnaces, and scrap 
preheaters should be conducted under normal production conditions. The 
emissions limitations derived for these sources used data for various 
production cycles, including charging, melting, back-charging, and 
tapping. As the MACT floor emissions limitation was based on various 
production cycles and because significant PM and metal HAP emissions 
can occur from these other production cycles, the promulgated 
requirement to test only during melting is being amended to more 
accurately align the testing requirements to the testing procedures 
used as the basis of the MACT emissions limitation. The proposed 
amendments require sampling during normal operating conditions, which 
may include charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging, and 
tapping (for a furnace) or charging, heating, and discharging (for a 
scrap preheater).
3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total Metal HAP
    One petitioner pointed out that it was unnecessary to specify the 
minimum sample volume for test runs by EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) because the method already includes a requirement. The 
proposed amendments remove this requirement from 40 CFR 63.7732(c)(2).
4. Opacity Test
    Section 63.7732(d) of the existing rule establishes the 
requirements for opacity tests. The proposed amendments instruct the 
certified observer how to take opacity readings by Method 9 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A) for a building that has many openings. This issue 
was not addressed in the NESHAP. Under the proposed amendments, the 
observer would be allowed to take readings from a limited number of 
openings or vents that appear to have the highest opacities instead of 
making observations for each opening or vent from the building or 
structure. Alternatively, a single observation for the entire building 
would be allowed if the fugitive release points afford such an 
observation.
    Section 63.7732(d)(2) requires that opacity observations to 
demonstrate compliance with the fugitive emissions opacity standards in 
40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7) overlap with the PM performance tests. One 
petitioner stated that it is not feasible for opacity observations to 
overlap with PM performance tests in all cases because subsequent tests 
are required every 6 months for opacity and every 5 years for PM 
emissions. The petitioner raised the concern that the rule could have 
been read to require a PM performance test during each opacity test; 
however, this was not our intent. In response to the petitioner's 
concern, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(2) to clarify 
that opacity tests are to be conducted during PM performance tests, but 
that PM performance tests are not required to occur during the 
semiannual opacity tests.
5. Alternative Test Method
    Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the NESHAP requires the use of EPA Method 
18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the triethylamine (TEA) 
concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core making line. 
One petitioner requested EPA to allow an alternative to Method 18 
because the detection limit of Method 18, which is approximately 1 part 
per million by volume (ppmv), is not significantly less than the 
emissions limit. The petitioner believed this could make compliance 
determinations problematic. According to the petitioner, operators will 
need to use the alternative silica gel adsorption tube sampling 
technique in section 8.2.4 of Method 18 to achieve lower detection 
limits, but that not all facilities will know to specify the 
alternative sampling techniques to their testing contractors. The 
commenter stated that the alternative methodology is equivalent to 
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 
2010 and requested that the rule allow the NIOSH method as an 
acceptable alternative. If the rule specifies the NIOSH method as an 
alternative, facilities can ensure that proper sampling techniques are 
used to achieve the low detection limits.
    We agree that NIOSH Method 2010 is an acceptable and equivalent 
sampling alternative to EPA Method 18. However, the NIOSH method does 
not include quality assurance performance requirements. Therefore, we 
are proposing NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines, Aliphatic'' (incorporated by 
reference-see Sec.  63.14) as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
18 (40 CFR

[[Page 19155]]

part 60, appendix A) provided the performance requirements outlined in 
section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied. Method 2010 is included in 
the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (4th edition, NIOSH Publication 
94-113, August 1994). The manual is available from the Government 
Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 
NTIS publication no. PB95154191. The NIOSH method may also be found on 
the NIOSH Web site at the following address: www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/
method-4000.html.
6. Procedures for Establishing Operating Limits
    One petitioner pointed out that the procedures for establishing 
control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7733(b) through (d) should 
not instruct operators to compute and record the 3-hour average 
parameter value because some sampling durations are based on sampling 
volumes which do not correspond to a 3-hour period. This requirement 
could be misinterpreted to require performance testing over a period of 
at least 3 hours.
    We originally intended that the performance test consist of three 
1-hour tests runs, and that the control device parameter operating 
limit would be based on the average of these data. However, there are 
instances where the duration of the sampling runs may be greater than 1 
hour. The proposed amendments delete the reference to the 3-hour 
average from the test procedures and clarify that the operator is to 
compute and record the average operating parameter value for each valid 
sampling run in which the applicable limit is met.
 7. Repeat Performance Tests
    One petitioner requested EPA to clarify that demonstrating 
compliance by one method does not preclude a demonstration of 
compliance using an alternative method at a later date. EPA agrees that 
a plant may elect to demonstrate compliance with an alternative 
emissions limit during the repeat performance tests conducted at least 
every 5 years. Furthermore, the plant may elect to conduct a 
performance test earlier than 5 years in order to change an operating 
limit or to demonstrate compliance with a different alternative 
emissions limit. The proposed amendments clarify these testing options 
in amendments to 40 CFR 63.7731(a). A test conducted for the purpose of 
changing operating limits is subject to notification requirements in 40 
CFR 63.7750(d).

E. Monitoring Requirements

1. Baghouse Monitoring Requirements
    Section 63.7740(b) of the existing NESHAP requires a bag leak 
detection system for each negative pressure baghouse and for each 
positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack where the baghouse is 
applied to meet any PM or total metal HAP emissions limitation in 
subpart EEEEE. This provision also requires inspection of each baghouse 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7740(b) (1) through (8). One 
petitioner states that the final rule appears to omit any monitoring 
requirements for positive pressure baghouses not equipped with a stack. 
Although these units are not required to install a bag leak detection 
system, we intended to require the visual inspection of these positive 
pressure baghouses to ensure their proper performance. Therefore, we 
are proposing amendments to clarify our original intent to require 
monitoring inspections of positive baghouses that are not equipped with 
a stack. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740(b) clarify the text 
to ensure that the requirements in this paragraph for installing and 
using a bag leak detection system apply only to negative pressure 
baghouses and positive pressure baghouses equipped with a stack. The 
inspection requirements would be separated and placed in a new 
paragraph (c) and clarified to state that the inspection requirements 
apply to each baghouse regardless of type. The proposed amendments to 
40 CFR 63.7740 also renumber the paragraphs which follow new paragraph 
(c). Similar clarifications would be made to the requirements for 
demonstrating continuous compliance in 40 CFR 63.7743(c).
2. Demonstration of Initial Compliance With Bag Leak Detection System 
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    Section 63.7736(c) of the existing NESHAP instructs the owner or 
operator how to demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements 
for bag leak detection systems. Under 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1), the owner 
or operator must submit the bag leak detection system monitoring plan 
to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.7710(b). One petitioner requested EPA to clarify this provision 
because the requirement could be interpreted to necessitate submission 
of the monitoring plan independent of the operation and maintenance 
plan. Our intent in the existing rule was to include the bag leak 
detection system information in the operation and maintenance plan to 
streamline the approval process and avoid the administrative costs 
associated with a separate submission. In addition, having one 
integrated plan provides a centralized reference tool for control 
device operation and maintenance requirements. The proposed amendments 
to 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1) clarify the requirement to submit the bag leak 
system monitoring information to the Administrator within the written 
operation and maintenance plan for approval according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7710(b).
3. Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Requirements for Monitors
    One petitioner requested that EPA revise the requirements for 
operation and maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems 
(CPMS) to more clearly describe the inspection requirements. Under the 
operation and maintenance requirements for flow measurement devices in 
40 CFR 63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator must perform monthly 
inspections of all flow sensor components for integrity, all electrical 
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. 
The proposed amendments change this provision to require a monthly 
visual inspection of all components, including all electrical and 
mechanical connections for proper functioning. The same changes would 
be made to the monthly inspection requirements for other types of 
monitoring devices in Sec. Sec.  63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi), 
(c)(2)(iv), (d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv).
    We are proposing these changes in response to the concerns 
expressed by one petitioner who explained that the changes are needed 
to ensure the ability of a facility to comply on a monthly basis. 
According to the petitioner, the ability of a facility to specifically 
inspect for ``integrity'', ``continuity'' and ``leakage'' depends on 
where the components are located, but a facility would be able to 
readily determine proper functioning. One the facility determines that 
a connection is not working properly, additional steps can be taken to 
address the problem, which may include removing a barrier to allow 
access to the connection. In addition, testing of the electrical 
connections for continuity is not necessary when indicators are 
routinely used to show whether the current is flowing. A visual 
inspection is sufficient to ensure that current is flowing to each 
electrical connection.
    The proposed amendments also revise the requirement for pressure

[[Page 19156]]

measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ``daily check of the pressure tap for 
pluggage.'' We are proposing to require a daily check for pluggage when 
using a regular pressure tap and a monthly check when using a non-
clogging pressure tap. Less frequent checks for non-clogging pressure 
taps would encourage use of newer technology and provide an inspection 
frequency commensurate with the operation of a non-clogging pressure 
tap. The proposed amendments also clarify the requirements for pressure 
measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the use of a manometer or equivalent device 
for calibrations.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The proposed amendments clarify two of the recordkeeping 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4). The requirement for the annual 
quantity of chemical binder or coating materials used to make molds and 
cores would be revised to require the annual quantity of chemical 
binder or coating materials used to coat or make molds and cores. We 
inadvertently omitted the word ``coat'' from the original rule 
language. The requirement for records of the annual quantity of HAP 
used would state that records are required of the annual quantity of 
HAP used in these chemical binder or coating materials at the foundry, 
as calculated from the recorded quantities and chemical compositions 
(from Material Data Safety Sheet or other documentation). This proposed 
amendment clarifies that the HAP records requirement is specific to the 
chemicals used in the mold and core-making and coating operations and 
not to other HAP materials used at the foundry such as solvents used to 
clean or degrease equipment.
    Proposed amendments to the reporting requirements allow foundries 
to report the results of the semiannual opacity tests within the 
semiannual reports rather than having to submit these semiannual 
documents separately. This change would reduce the administrative costs 
associated with submission of separate reports. Other proposed 
amendments to the reporting requirements clarify the requirements for 
an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report by adding the 
same language used in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). The proposed amendments 
require an immediate report if you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction and the source exceeded any applicable emissions limitation 
in 40 CFR 63.7690.

G. Definitions

    We are proposing to add definitions of the terms ``off blast'' and 
``on blast'' to 40 CFR 63.7765. These definitions would clarify that 
blast conditions used to bring the cupola up to operating temperature 
during start-up are not covered by the VOHAP parameter operating limit 
in 40 CFR 63.7690(b)(3). The existing parameter operating limit 
requires the foundry to operate each combustion device applied to 
emissions from a cupola that is subject to the VOHAP emissions limit so 
that the 15-minute average combustion zone temperature does not fall 
below a certain level. The operating limit states that periods when the 
cupola is off-blast and for 15 minutes after going on-blast from an 
off-blast condition are not included in the 15-minute average 
combustion zone temperature. The term ``off blast'' would be defined as 
those periods of cupola operation when the cupola is not actively being 
used to produce molten metal. Off-blast conditions include cupola 
startup procedures as defined in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan. Off-blast conditions also include idling conditions when the 
blast air is turned off or down to the point that the cupola does not 
produce additional molten metal. The term ``on blast'' would mean those 
periods of cupola operation when combustion (blast) air is introduced 
to the cupola furnace and the furnace is capable of producing molten 
metal. On blast conditions are characterized by both blast air 
introduction and molten metal production.
    The petitioners also raised the concern that only a limited number 
of metal constituents were evaluated when assessing the total metal HAP 
emissions limits. They noted that not all constituents for which EPA 
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) is applicable are HAP. They also 
sought clarification on how to calculate the total metal HAP if certain 
constituents were below the analytical detection limit.
    The evaluation of the total metal HAP emissions limits actually 
included most Method 29 HAP constituents, although it did not include 
phosphorus. The evaluation did not include detection limits or other 
non-zero values for metal constituents measured below detection limit. 
To address the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing to revise the 
definition of ``total metal HAP'' to specify the analytes to be 
included and how non-detect values are to be used in calculating the 
total metal HAP quantity. The proposed definition is based on the 
analytes and methods used to derive the total metal HAP alternative. 
The definition of ``total metal HAP'' would be the sum of the 
concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by 
EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only the measured 
concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations 
exceeding one-half of the quantification limit of the analytical method 
are used in the sum. If any of the analytes are not detected or are 
detected at concentrations less than one-half the quantification limit 
of the analytical method, the concentration of those analytes is 
assumed to be zero for the purposes of calculating the total metal HAP 
for this subpart.
    We are also proposing to clarify the definition of ``scrap 
preheater'' to differentiate scrap dryers that are used solely to 
remove moisture from the scrap metal from scrap preheaters. Scrap 
preheaters are used to preheat the metal scrap and reduce the energy 
required to effect melting. Most scrap preheaters heat the scrap metal 
to 400 degrees Fahrenheit or higher while scrap dryers operate at lower 
temperatures and are used solely to remove moisture from the scrap 
metal as a safety consideration when operating an electric induction 
furnace. Because of the lower operating temperatures, we do not believe 
that scrap dryers are a significant potential source for VOHAP 
emissions. We are proposing to amend the definition of ``scrap 
preheater'' to state that scrap dryers, which are used solely to remove 
water from metal scrap that does not contain any volatile impurities or 
other tramp materials, are not considered to be scrap preheaters for 
purposes of this subpart.

H. Applicability

    One of the petitioners asked EPA to reference the CAA or NESHAP 
General Provisions definition of ``major source'' in 40 CFR 63.7681 (Am 
I subject to this subpart?). We are proposing to add a reference to 40 
CFR 63.2 as requested by the commenter. This addition would clarify 
that when we refer to a ``major source'' of hazardous air pollutants in 
40 CFR 63.7681, we are referring to the definition of major source in 
40 CFR 63.2, and not, for example, to the definition of major source in 
40 CFR 51.166.

I. Editorial Corrections

    We are proposing to correct a grammatical error in 40 CFR 
63.7710(b), which should refer to an emissions

[[Page 19157]]

source subject to a (rather than ``an'') PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP 
emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). A comma would be added to 40 CFR 
63.7734(a)(11). The words ``as possible'' were inadvertently omitted 
from 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i) and would be added. The proposed 
amendments also correct a misspelling of the word ``calendar'' in 40 
CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii).

IV. 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

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The proposed amendments add a new compliance alternative, allow a new 
alternative test method, and clarify requirements in the existing rule. 
One proposed amendment to the baghouse monitoring requirements 
clarifies our original intent to require inspections of positive 
pressure baghouses not equipped with a stack. No new burden is 
associated with this proposed requirement because the burden was 
included in the approved information collection request (ICR) for the 
existing rule. The OMB has previously approved the information 
collection requirements contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0543, EPA ICR number 2096.02. A copy of the OMB-approved ICR may be 
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA 
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail 
at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards 
for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees 
for NAICS codes 331511, 331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; 
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the proposed amendments 
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    There would not be any adverse impacts on any source (including any 
small entity) as a result of the proposed amendments because the 
proposed amendments provide an overall economic benefit to entities 
subject to the rule. The proposed amendments do not create any new 
requirements or burdens that were not already included in the economic 
impact assessment for the existing rule. The proposed amendments 
relieve regulatory burden for all entities as a result of the 
operational flexibility afforded by the alternative compliance option, 
alternative test method, and provisions allowing plants to combine 
multiple reports into a single submission. We have therefore concluded 
that these proposed amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all 
affected small entities. 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), Pub. 
L. 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

[[Page 19158]]

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 the proposed amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. The proposed amendments are expected to 
result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector 
and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments. 
Thus, the proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the proposed amendments 
do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed 
amendments contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and 
impose no obligations upon them.

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'' are 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.''
    The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
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. The proposed 
amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed 
amendments.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
government, EPA specifically solicits comments 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.'' The proposed rule amendments do not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They 
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. 
The proposed amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.

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. These proposed amendments 
are not subject to the Executive Order because they are based solely on 
technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    These proposed amendments are 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 they are not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, 
we have concluded that these proposed amendments are not likely to have 
any adverse energy effects because energy requirements would remain at 
the existing level. No additional pollution controls or other equipment 
that would consume energy are required by the proposed amendments.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The proposed amendments involve technical standards. These proposed 
amendments include an alternative methodology, the NIOSH Method 2010, 
``Amines, Aliphatic'' (incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14) for 
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the 
triethylamine (TEA) concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold 
or core making line provided the performance requirements outlined in 
section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA and alternative 
methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified.
    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 Sec. Sec.  
63.7(f) and 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 voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

[[Page 19159]]

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 these proposed amendments will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. These proposed amendments do not relax the control 
measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause 
emissions increases from these sources.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: April 9, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter 
I, 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 adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) The following method as published in the National Institute of 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) test method compendium, ``NIOSH 
Manual of Analytical Methods'', NIOSH publication no. 94-113, Fourth 
Edition.
    (i) NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines, Aliphatic,'' Issue 2 (and 
subsequent revisions), August 15, 1994, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.7732(g)(1)(v) of Subpart EEEEE of this part.
    (ii) [Reserved]

Subpart EEEEE--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.7681 is amended by revising the second sentence to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.7681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    * * * Your iron and steel foundry is a major source of HAP for 
purposes of this subpart if it emits or has the potential to emit any 
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year or if it is located at a 
facility that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 
25 tons or more per year as defined in Sec.  63.2.
    4. Section 63.7690 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
    d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11