National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries, 7210-7223 [E8-1979]
Download as PDF
7210
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
safety or health standard may constitute
a separate offense. The amount of the
proposed civil penalty shall be based on
the criteria set forth in sections 105(b)
and 110(i) of the Mine Act. These
criteria are:
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
TABLE XIV.—PENALTY CONVERSION
TABLE
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Points
60 or fewer ...........................
61 ..........................................
62 ..........................................
63 ..........................................
64 ..........................................
65 ..........................................
66 ..........................................
67 ..........................................
68 ..........................................
69 ..........................................
70 ..........................................
71 ..........................................
72 ..........................................
73 ..........................................
74 ..........................................
75 ..........................................
76 ..........................................
77 ..........................................
78 ..........................................
79 ..........................................
80 ..........................................
81 ..........................................
82 ..........................................
83 ..........................................
84 ..........................................
85 ..........................................
86 ..........................................
87 ..........................................
88 ..........................................
89 ..........................................
90 ..........................................
91 ..........................................
92 ..........................................
93 ..........................................
94 ..........................................
95 ..........................................
96 ..........................................
97 ..........................................
98 ..........................................
99 ..........................................
100 ........................................
101 ........................................
102 ........................................
103 ........................................
104 ........................................
105 ........................................
106 ........................................
107 ........................................
108 ........................................
109 ........................................
110 ........................................
111 ........................................
112 ........................................
113 ........................................
114 ........................................
115 ........................................
116 ........................................
117 ........................................
118 ........................................
119 ........................................
120 ........................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Penalty ($)
112
121
131
142
154
167
181
196
212
230
249
270
293
317
343
372
403
436
473
512
555
601
651
705
764
828
897
971
1,052
1,140
1,235
1,337
1,449
1,569
1,700
1,842
1,995
2,161
2,341
2,536
2,748
2,976
3,224
3,493
3,784
4,099
4,440
4,810
5,211
5,645
6,115
6,624
7,176
7,774
8,421
9,122
9,882
10,705
11,597
12,563
13,609
Jkt 214001
TABLE XIV.—PENALTY CONVERSION
TABLE—Continued
Points
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Penalty ($)
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
or more ..........................
14,743
15,971
17,301
18,742
20,302
21,993
23,825
25,810
27,959
30,288
32,810
35,543
38,503
41,574
44,645
47,716
50,787
53,858
56,929
60,000
63,071
66,142
69,213
70,000
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 100.5 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read
as follows:
I
§ 100.5 Determination of penalty amount;
special assessment.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Any operator who fails to correct
a violation for which a citation has been
issued under Section 104(a) of the Mine
Act within the period permitted for its
correction may be assessed a civil
penalty of not more than $7,500 for each
day during which such failure or
violation continues.
(d) Any miner who willfully violates
the mandatory safety standards relating
to smoking or the carrying of smoking
materials, matches, or lighters shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $375 for each occurrence of such
violation.
*
*
*
*
*
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing amendments to
the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
iron and steel foundries. These final
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: These final amendments are
effective on February 7, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in these amendments
is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of February 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0034. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the Federal Docket Management System
index at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
40 CFR Part 63
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; email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0034; FRL–8522–4]
Outline
RIN 2060–AM85
The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
[FR Doc. E8–2226 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
III. Summary of the Final Amendments Made
Since Proposal
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. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Language of Proposed Alternative
Emissions Limits
B. Mercury Emissions Limit
C. Information on Mercury Switch
Removal from Scrap Suppliers
V. 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
NAICS code1
Category
Industry .....................................................
331511
Federal government ..................................
State/local/tribal government ....................
331512
331513
........................
........................
1 North
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities
potentially affected by these final
amendments include:
Examples of regulated entities
Iron foundries, Iron and steel plants. Automotive and large equipment manufacturers.
Steel investment foundries.
Steel foundries (except investment).
Not affected.
Not affected.
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. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
Worldwide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of this final
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.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7211
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these
final amendments is available only by
filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by April 7, 2008.
Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to these final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
amendments that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by these final amendments
may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.
II. Background Information
The NESHAP for iron and steel
foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEEE) establishes emissions
limitations and work practice
requirements for the control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
foundry operations. The NESHAP
implements section 112(d) of the CAA
by requiring all iron and steel foundries
that are major sources of HAP to meet
standards reflecting application of the
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The compliance
date for most of the subpart EEEEE
requirements was April 23, 2007.
After publication of the NESHAP (69
FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the American
Foundry Society, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, and the
Steel Founders’ Society of America filed
petitions for reconsideration of the final
rule. The American Foundry Society
and the Steel Founders’ Society of
America also filed petitions for review
of the final rule (Steel Founders’ Society
of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04–1190,
DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society
v. U.S. EPA, No. 04–1191, DC Cir.). The
concerns raised by the petitioners
regarding the work practice standards
for scrap management have been
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
resolved by rule amendments issued on
May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel
Founders’ Society of America petitioned
the court for voluntary dismissal of their
petition for review on March 23, 2006,
and the court granted that petition on
May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge
to the NESHAP remaining before the
court is the American Foundry Society
petition for review, No. 04–1191.
In accordance with section 113(g) of
the CAA, EPA published a notice of a
proposed settlement agreement between
EPA and the petitioner (72 FR 1986,
January 17, 2007) and provided a 30-day
comment period which ended on
February 16, 2007. The settlement
agreement became final on March 9,
2007. On April 17, 2007 (72 FR 19150),
we proposed rule amendments which
addressed the need for alternative
emissions limits for cupolas at existing
foundries and clarification of other rule
requirements as set forth in Attachment
A to the settlement agreement. The
proposed amendments also included
corrections to a few minor editorial
errors.
These final amendments are
materially the same as the proposed
amendments. EPA expects these final
amendments to resolve the remaining
issues raised by the petitioner.
III. Summary of Final Amendments and
Changes Made Since Proposal
These final amendments include two
changes since proposal. The first change
is in the wording used to describe the
emission limit for the new compliance
option for cupola melting furnaces;
instead of abbreviating the limit as lb/
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
7212
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ton of particulate matter (PM) (or total
metal HAP), we expressly state the limit
as pound of PM (or total metal HAP) per
ton of metal charged. We intend this as
a clarification, not as a substantive
change from what we proposed. We are
also correcting a publication error in the
definition of ‘‘deviation’’ as published at
72 FR 19164. All other final
amendments are exactly as proposed.
A. Emissions Limitations
1. New Compliance Options for Cupola
Metal Melting Furnaces
These final amendments add a new
compliance option to § 73.7690(a)(2) of
the NESHAP. The new alternative
emissions limits for cupola metal
melting furnaces at existing iron and
steel foundries allows the use of control
technologies that are designed on a mass
removal basis rather than an outlet
concentration basis. The levels of the
new alternative emissions limits are the
same as proposed: 0.10 pound of PM per
ton of metal charged or 0.008 pound of
total HAP per ton of metal charged. In
response to public comment, we have
revised the manner in which the
emissions limits are stated in the rule
for clarity. We have also revised
associated compliance provisions in
§§ 63.7732(b)(6) and (c)(6),
63.7734(a)(2)(iii) and (iv), and
63.7743(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to refer to the
new alternative limits in terms of
pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged or pounds of total metal HAP
per ton of metal charged instead of lb/
ton of PM or lb/ton of total metal HAP,
respectively.
2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit
These final amendments specify that
the opacity limitations apply only to
buildings that house iron and steel
foundry emissions sources. If
nonfoundry operations are housed in
the same building as the foundry
operations, the foundry must comply
with the opacity limits for that building.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit
These final amendments replace the
reference to test conditions (‘‘as
determined when scrubbing with fresh
acid solution’’) with the phrase
‘‘according to the performance test
procedures in § 63.7732(g)’’ since
§ 63.7732(g) contains the requirement to
conduct the test when scrubbing with
fresh acid solution.
B. Work Practice Standards
1. Capture and Collection Systems
These final amendments delete the
word ‘‘standard’’ from 40 CFR
63.7690(b)(1) to clarify that capture and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
collection systems are required for
emissions sources subject to an
emissions limit but not for emissions
sources subject to work practice
standards.
2. Scrap Management
These final amendments specify that
‘‘chlorinated’’ plastics are to be removed
from the scrap material (instead of all
plastic). These final amendments also
revise the requirement in 40 CFR
63.7700(c)(2) for the owner or operator
to obtain and maintain onsite a copy of
the procedures used by the scrap
supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing
automobile bodies that have had the
switches removed. These final
amendments include an alternative
procedure that allows the plant to
document their attempts to obtain a
copy of the procedures from the scrap
suppliers servicing their area. We note,
however, that under 40 CFR
63.7700(c)(2) the materials acquisition
program must specify that the scrap
supplier remove accessible mercury
switches from the trunks and hoods of
any automotive bodies contained in the
scrap in addition to accessible lead
components such as batteries and wheel
weights. It is incumbent on the foundry
owner or operator to communicate these
specifications to their scrap suppliers.
3. Scrap Preheaters
The existing rule requires the owner
or operator to install, operate, and
maintain a gas-fired preheater according
to 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(1) or charge only
certain materials according to 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(2). These final amendments
revise the language of § 63.7700(e)(1) to
clarify that foundries are not required to
install gas-fired preheaters when not
necessary for foundry operations. It was
not our intent to mandate installation of
preheaters, but rather to establish
requirements for those existing facilities
that use scrap preheaters in lieu of
selecting the option in 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(2). Therefore, these final
amendments clarify § 63.7700(e)(1) by
deleting the word ‘‘install’’. Instead,
these final amendments require the
owner or operator to operate and
maintain a gas-fired preheater where the
flame directly contacts the scrap
charged.
C. Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
These final amendments clarify that
the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2)
applies to each capture and collection
system and control device for an
emissions source subject to a PM, metal
HAP, triethylamine (TEA), or volatile
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
organic hazardous pollutants (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. These final
amendments clarify our original intent
to allow foundries to demonstrate
compliance with any of the applicable
alternative emissions limitations that
are provided for a specific emissions
source. When multiple alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a
specific emissions source, iron and steel
foundries can demonstrate initial
compliance with any of the alternative
limits; they are not required to comply
with all of the alternative emissions
limits at any one time. These final
amendments also clarify a facility’s
ability to change their selected
compliance alternative and the
procedures needed to effect that change.
However, regarding continuous
compliance, the facility is expected to
continuously comply with the
alternative emissions limit that was
selected as their compliance option as
demonstrated in their most recent
performance test. The facility may
choose to alter their selected alternative
but must continue to comply with the
previously selected alternative until
they successfully demonstrate
compliance with the new alternative
emissions limitation.
We are also finalizing requirements
for determining initial compliance for
cupola melting furnaces at existing iron
and steel foundries that are subject to
the new mass rate emissions limit. The
final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b)
and (c) include new equations for
determining PM or total metal HAP
emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton of
metal charged format. Other
amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and
(c) clarify test methods source sampling
requirements.
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
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
emissions sources are operating is
redundant and imposes unnecessary
costs because the control device should
perform the same on each identical
furnace. These final amendments
resolve the petitioner’s concern by
adding a new provision to the
performance test requirements. As
proposed, the final amendment requires
foundries to submit a site-specific test
plan for the situation described by the
petitioner or other situations not
expressly considered in 40 CFR 63.7734.
The site-specific test plan, which is
subject to approval by the
Administrator, will explain the
procedures that would be followed
during the test, such as operation of the
unit or units at the maximum operating
condition of the control system. The
Administrator or delegated authority
will determine on a case-by-case basis if
one representative furnace/control
device configuration may be tested.
2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc
Furnaces, Electric Induction Furnaces,
and Scrap Preheaters
As proposed, we are clarifying the
sampling instructions in 40 CFR
63.7732(c)(4) and (5) to state that the
initial compliance demonstrations for
electric arc metal melting furnaces,
electric induction metal melting
furnaces, and scrap preheaters must be
conducted under normal production
conditions. These final amendments
require sampling during normal
operating conditions, which may
include charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping (for a
furnace) or charging, heating, and
discharging (for a scrap preheater).
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total
Metal HAP
As proposed, these final amendments
remove the requirement in 40 CFR
63.7732(c)(2) for a minimum sample
volume for test runs by EPA Method 29
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) because
the method already includes such a
requirement.
4. Opacity Test
Section 63.7732(d) of the existing
NESHAP establishes the requirements
for opacity tests. These final
amendments instruct the certified
observer how to take opacity readings
by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
A) for a building that has many
openings. As proposed, these final
amendments allow the observer to take
readings from a limited number of
openings or vents that appear to have
the highest opacities instead of making
observations for each opening or vent
from the building or structure.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
Alternatively, a single observation for
the entire building is allowed if the
fugitive release points afford such an
observation. These final amendments
also revise the language of 40 CFR
63.7732(d)(2) to clarify that opacity tests
are to be conducted during PM
performance tests, but that PM
performance tests are not required to
occur during the semiannual opacity
tests.
5. Alternative Test Method
Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the existing
NESHAP requires the use of EPA
Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)
to determine the TEA concentration of
gases from the TEA cold box mold or
core-making line. As proposed, these
final amendments allow NIOSH Method
2010, ‘‘Amines, Aliphatic’’
(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14)
as an alternative to EPA Method 18 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A) provided the
performance requirements outlined in
section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are
satisfied. Method 2010 is included in
the NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods (4th edition, NIOSH
Publication 94–113, August 1994). The
manual is available from the
Government Printing Office and the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), NTIS publication No.
PB95154191. The NIOSH method may
also be found on the NIOSH Web site at
the following address: www.cdc.gov/
niosh/nmam/method-4000.html.
6. Procedures for Establishing Operating
Limits
As proposed, these final amendments
clarify the procedures for establishing
control device operating limits in 40
CFR 63.7733(b) through (d) by deleting
the reference to the 3-hour average from
the test procedures. These final
amendments specify that the owner or
operator is to compute and record the
average operating parameter value for
each valid sampling run in which the
applicable limit is met.
7. Repeat Performance Tests
As proposed, these final amendments
revise the requirements for repeat
performance in 40 CFR 63.7731(a) to
clarify that demonstrating compliance
by one method does not preclude a
plant from demonstrating compliance
using an alternative method at a later
date. A plant may elect to demonstrate
compliance with an alternative
emissions limit during the repeat
performance tests conducted at least
every 5 years. Furthermore, a plant may
elect to conduct a performance test
earlier than 5 years in order to change
an operating limit or to demonstrate
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7213
compliance with a different alternative
emissions limit. A test conducted for the
purpose of changing operating limits is
subject to notification requirements in
40 CFR 63.7750(d).
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). As proposed,
these final amendments include
monitoring requirements for the visual
inspection of positive pressure
baghouses that are not equipped with a
stack. As proposed, these final
amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740(b)
clarify the text to ensure that the
requirements in this paragraph for
installing and using a bag leak detection
system apply only to negative pressure
baghouses and positive pressure
baghouses equipped with a stack. The
inspection requirements are separated
and placed in a new paragraph (c) and
clarified to state that the inspection
requirements apply to each baghouse
regardless of type. These final
amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740 also
renumber the paragraphs which follow
new paragraph (c). Similar clarifications
are made to the requirements for
demonstrating continuous compliance
in 40 CFR 63.7743(c).
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).
As proposed, these final amendments to
40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1) revise this
provision to clarify that submission of
the monitoring plan independent of the
operation and maintenance plan is not
necessary. Our intent is to include the
bag leak detection system information in
the operation and maintenance plan to
streamline the approval process and
avoid the administrative costs
associated with a separate submission.
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
7214
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, having one integrated plan
will provide a centralized reference tool
for control device operation and
maintenance requirements.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
3. Installation, Operation, and
Maintenance Requirements for Monitors
As proposed, these final amendments
revise the requirements for operation
and maintenance of continuous
parameter monitoring systems to more
clearly describe the inspection
requirements. Under the operation and
maintenance requirements for flow
measurement devices in 40 CFR
63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator
must perform monthly inspections of all
flow sensor components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity,
and all mechanical connections for
leakage. These final amendments
change this provision to require a
monthly visual inspection of all
components, including all electrical and
mechanical connections for proper
functioning. The same changes are made
to the monthly inspection requirements
for other types of monitoring devices in
§§ 63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi), (c)(2)(iv),
(d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv).
As proposed, these final amendments
also revise the requirement for pressure
measurement devices in 40 CFR
63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ‘‘daily check of
the pressure tap for pluggage.’’ We are
requiring a daily check for pluggage
when using a regular pressure tap and
a monthly check when using a nonclogging pressure tap. These final
amendments also clarify the
requirements for pressure measurement
devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and
40 CFR 63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the
use of a manometer or equivalent device
for calibrations.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
As proposed, these final amendments
clarify two of the recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4).
The requirement for the annual quantity
of chemical binder or coating materials
used to make molds and cores is revised
to require the annual quantity of
chemical binder or coating materials
used to coat or make molds and cores.
(We inadvertently omitted the word
‘‘coat’’ from the original rule language.)
The final requirement for records of the
annual quantity of HAP used states that
records are required of the annual
quantity of HAP used in these chemical
binder or coating materials at the
foundry, as calculated from the recorded
quantities and chemical compositions
(from Material Data Safety Sheet or
other documentation). This final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
amendment clarifies that the HAP
records requirement is specific to the
chemicals used in the mold and coremaking and coating operations and not
to other HAP materials used at the
foundry such as solvents used to clean
or degrease equipment.
These final amendments to the
reporting requirements allow foundries
to report the results of the semiannual
opacity tests within the semiannual
reports rather than having to submit
these semiannual documents separately.
Other final amendments to the reporting
requirements clarify the requirements
for an immediate startup, shutdown,
and malfunction report by adding the
same language used in 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(ii). These final amendments
require an immediate report if a foundry
has a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
and exceeds any applicable emissions
limitation in 40 CFR 63.7690.
G. Definitions
We are amending the definition of the
term ‘‘Deviation’’ in 40 CFR 63.7765 to
clarify that the enforcement authority
determines if a deviation is a violation.
The proposed amendment appeared at
72 FR 19164: however, due to a
publication error, the new language was
added after the first sentence of the
original definition, rather than at the
end. In these final amendments, we are
correcting the placement of the new
language.
As proposed, we are adding
definitions of the terms ‘‘off blast’’ and
‘‘on blast’’ to 40 CFR 63.7765. The term
‘‘off blast’’ is defined as those periods of
cupola operation when the cupola is not
actively being used to produce molten
metal. Off-blast conditions include
cupola startup procedures as defined in
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. Off-blast conditions also include
idling conditions when the blast air is
turned off or down to the point that the
cupola does not produce additional
molten metal. The term ‘‘on blast’’
means those periods of cupola operation
when combustion (blast) air is
introduced to the cupola furnace and
the furnace is capable of producing
molten metal. On blast conditions are
characterized by both blast air
introduction and molten metal
production.
As proposed, these final amendments
revise the definition of ‘‘total metal
HAP’’ to specify the analytes to be
included and how non-detect values are
to be used in calculating the total metal
HAP quantity. The definition of ‘‘total
metal HAP’’ is the sum of the
concentrations of antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 onehalf the quantification limit of the
analytical method, the concentration of
those analytes is assumed to be zero for
the purposes of calculating the total
metal HAP for this subpart.
As proposed, we are also clarifying
the definition of ‘‘scrap preheater’’ to
differentiate scrap dryers that are used
solely to remove moisture from the
scrap metal from scrap preheaters. The
revised definition of ‘‘scrap preheater’’
states that scrap dryers, which are used
solely to remove water from metal scrap
that does not contain any volatile
impurities or other tramp materials, are
not considered to be scrap preheaters for
purposes of this subpart.
H. Applicability
As proposed, we are revising the
applicability provisions in 40 CFR
63.7681 to reference the definition of
‘‘major source’’ in 40 CFR 63.2. This
amendment clarifies that when we refer
to a ‘‘major source’’ of hazardous air
pollutants in 40 CFR 63.7681, we are
referring to the definition of major
source in 40 CFR 63.2, and not, for
example, to the definition of major
source in 40 CFR 51.166.
I. Editorial Corrections
As proposed, we are correcting a
grammatical error in 40 CFR 63.7710(b),
which should refer to an emissions
source subject to a (rather than ‘‘an’’)
PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP
emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). A
comma is added to 40 CFR
63.7734(a)(11). The words ‘‘as possible’’
are added to 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i).
The final amendments also correct a
misspelling of the word ‘‘calendar’’ in
40 CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii).
IV. Summary of Comments and
Responses
A. Language of Proposed Alternative
Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the proposed alternative
standards for PM or total metal HAP and
conforming amendments. However, the
commenter believed that the wording of
the proposed limit for total metal HAP
is ambiguous even though the meaning
is clear in context. According to the
commenter, the proposed limit for total
metal HAP (0.008 lb/ton of total metal
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
HAP) could be construed to mean that
the standard is 0.008 pounds of some
unspecified substance per ton of total
metal HAP emitted. The commenter
recommended that EPA clarify the
language to read ‘‘0.008 pounds of total
metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged’’ which would be consistent
with the language in § 63.7690(a)(ii) for
the proposed alternative PM limit.
Response: Section 63.7690(a)(2)(ii) of
the proposed amendments establishes
the alternative limit for PM as 0.10
pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged; the lb/ton abbreviation is then
used in § 63.7690(a)(2)(iv) for the total
metal HAP limit. While we agree with
the commenter that the meaning is clear
in context, we have revised the language
for the total metal HAP limit to read
according to the commenter’s
suggestion. For additional clarity, we
have revised the wording of both limits
when they appear in conforming
amendments to read ‘‘pound of PM per
ton (lb/ton) of metal charged’’ and
‘‘pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/
ton) of metal charged.’’
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
B. Mercury Emissions Limit
Comment: One commenter
recommended that EPA adopt standalone mercury emissions standards
similar to those in New Jersey.1 The
commenter explained that the rule
requires iron and steel melters (at both
foundries and steel production plants)
to meet a mercury emissions limit of 35
milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel
produced or, in the alternative, reduce
mercury emissions by 75 percent using
a mercury control apparatus. The
emission limit, which becomes effective
in January 2010, can be achieved
through source separation measures
and, if necessary, additional exhaust
controls. According to the commenter,
the emissions limit determines the
success of the source separation
program and the need for add-on
mercury control measures on the melter
exhaust. The commenter stated that one
foundry had recently installed an
activated carbon injection system for
mercury control and a baghouse serving
the cupola and that test results show
greater than 90 percent mercury control
and emissions less than 3 mg/ton.
According to the commenter, other
facilities with existing fabric filter
1 The State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection mercury regulations for
iron and steel scrap melting specify that mercury
emissions from each melter shall not exceed 35
megagrams per ton of steel produced. Alternatively,
mercury emissions as measured at the exit of the
mercury control apparatus must be reduced by at
least 75 percent (N.J.A.C. 7:27–27.6). These rules
have been upheld by the Appellate Division of the
State Superior Court.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
control are testing carbon injection and
have reported compliance with the
mercury emissions limit but have not
submitted formal test results.
Response: As described in the
preamble to the final NESHAP for Iron
and Steel Foundries (69 FR 21906, April
22, 2004), the control systems used at
iron and steel foundries at the time the
NESHAP was developed were not
effective in reducing mercury emissions.
The pollution prevention measure of
removing mercury switches from
automotive scrap was determined to be
a cost-effective ‘‘beyond the MACT
floor’’ requirement and was included as
a requirement in the final NESHAP as
part of the scrap selection and
inspection program. The final NESHAP
was projected to reduce mercury
emissions by 2,800 pounds per year at
a cost of $3.6 million per year (which
includes increased cost of scrap for
removing the mercury switches). We
recognize that there are other mercurycontaining devices in automotive scrap
so that the pollution prevention
program required by the final NESHAP
does not eliminate all mercury from the
scrap. At the time the NESHAP was
developed, we considered requirements
for more stringent mercury reduction
requirements, either through additional
scrap inspection and selection
inspection requirements specific to
other mercury-containing devices or
through innovative mercury controls.
Based on the small quantities of
mercury in these other devices, these
options were determined to be costineffective.
A re-evalulation of the MACT floor for
the Iron and Steel NESHAP in light of
new control systems added to iron and
steel foundries since the NESHAP was
first promulgated is outside the scope of
the current package of amendments. We
did not include or take comment on a
separate mercury limit in our April 17,
2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Therefore, we are not including specific
emission limits for mercury in the final
amendments. A technology review of
the MACT standards is required by the
CAA eight years after promulgation.
These newly installed mercury controls
will be considered in detail during this
technology review.
C. Information on Mercury Switch
Removal From Scrap Suppliers
Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA should not revise § 63.7700(b)(2) to
eliminate the requirement that facilities
buy scrap only from suppliers willing to
provide a copy of their procedures for
ensuring that mercury switches are
removed from automobile bodies that
they supply. The commenter believed
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7215
that no supplier will do this unless
foundries require it because suppliers
that do provide a copy of their
procedures will be at a disadvantage to
suppliers that either do not remove the
mercury switches or are unwilling to
document their removal procedures.
According to the commenter, under the
proposed amendments, suppliers would
not be penalized as they are under the
existing rule.
The commenter stated that this
proposed amendment increases mercury
emissions and that EPA did not provide
an estimate of the health,
environmental, and economic impacts
of the increase. The commenter also
claimed that because of limitations
currently enforced on some sources, the
proposed amendment reduces the
stringency of the rule below the MACT
floor for new sources and possibly for
existing sources. According to the
commenter, the proposed amendment is
inconsistent with the CAA.
Response: The amendment does not
absolve the iron and steel foundry from
the responsibility to use automotive
scrap that has had accessible mercury
switches removed. In previous
amendments to the NESHAP (70 FR
29400, May 20, 2005), we included
provisions for foundries to perform
inspections at the scrap supplier. Thus,
the foundry should be able to verify
whether the supplier in fact removes
accessible mercury switches. The reason
for the amendment is to clarify that EPA
is not imposing a regulatory burden on
the scrap supplier through this rule.
EPA is not requiring scrap suppliers to
provide the foundry with written
procedures for ensuring the mercury
switches are removed. Nevertheless,
because we require foundries to
purchase only automotive scrap that has
had accessible mercury switches
removed from the trunks and hoods of
automobile bodies, a foundry is much
more likely to do business with a scrap
supplier that supplies written
procedures than with one that does not.
It is incumbent on the foundry to
document their attempt to obtain
written procedures and to ensure,
through site inspections or other means,
that any automotive scrap that they
purchase from their suppliers has had
accessible mercury switches removed
from the trunks and hoods.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
7216
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
October 4, 1993) and is therefore not
subject to review under the Executive
Order.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. These
final amendments add a new
compliance alternative, allow a new
alternative test method, and clarify
requirements in the existing rule. One
amendment to the baghouse monitoring
requirements clarifies our original intent
to require inspections of positive
pressure baghouses not equipped with a
stack. No new burden is associated with
this requirement because the burden
was included in the approved
information collection request (ICR) for
the existing rule. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the
existing regulation (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060–0543, EPA ICR
number 2096.03. A copy of the OMBapproved 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
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 these final amendments on
small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business that meets the
Small Business Administration size
standards for small businesses found at
13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500
employees for NAICS codes 331511,
331512, and 331513); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of these final amendments on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In determining whether a rule
has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule
on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small
entities subject to the rule.
There would not be any adverse
impacts on any source (including any
small entity) as a result of the final
amendments because the final
amendments do not create any new
requirements or burdens that were not
already included in the economic
impact assessment for the existing rule.
These final amendments relieve
regulatory burden for all entities as a
result of the operational flexibility
afforded by the alternative compliance
option, alternative test method, and
provisions allowing plants to combine
multiple reports into a single
submission. We have therefore
concluded that these final amendments
will relieve regulatory burden for all
affected small entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 one 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 costeffective, 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 these final
amendments do not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year.
The final amendments are expected to
result in an overall reduction in
expenditures for the private sector and
are not expected to impact State, local,
or tribal governments. Thus, the final
amendments are not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. EPA has determined that
these final amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. These final amendments
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.’’
These final amendments do not have
federalism implications. They will not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. These final
amendments do not impose any
requirements on State and local
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to these final
amendments.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
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.’’ These final amendments
do not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
These final amendments impose no
requirements on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to these final amendments.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 final amendments are
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because they are based on technology
performance and not on health or safety
risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
These final amendments are not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because they are not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule,
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113,
Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. The VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not
use available and applicable VCS.
These final amendments involve
technical standards. Therefore the
Agency conducted a search to identify
potential VCS in addition to the EPA
and alternative method. However, we
identified no such standards and none
were brought to our attention in
comments. Therefore EPA has decided
to use an alternative methodology, the
NIOSH Method 2010, ‘‘Amines,
Aliphatic’’ (incorporated by reference in
§ 63.14) for EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A) to determine the TEA
concentration of gases from the TEA
cold box mold or core making line
provided the performance requirements
outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method
18 are satisfied.
For the methods required or
referenced by these final amendments, a
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7217
source may apply to EPA for permission
to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods,
performance specifications, or
procedures under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f)
of subpart A of the General Provisions.
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 final
amendments will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because they do not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. These final
amendments do not relax the control
measures on sources regulated by the
rule and therefore will not cause
emissions increases from these sources.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing these final
amendments and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final
amendments in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
These final amendments will be
effective on February 7, 2008.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
7218
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
§ 63.7690
I meet?
Dated: January 23, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
(a) You must meet the emissions
limits or standards in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (11) of this section that apply to
you. When alternative emissions
limitations are provided for a given
emissions source, you are not restricted
in the selection of which applicable
alternative emissions limitation is used
to demonstrate compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For each cupola metal melting
furnace at an existing iron and steel
foundry, you must not discharge
emissions through a conveyance to the
atmosphere that exceed either the limit
for PM in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of
this section or, alternatively the limit for
total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)
or (iv) of this section:
(i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM; or
(ii) 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton)
of metal charged, or
(iii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP;
or
(iv) 0.008 pound of total metal HAP
per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) For each building or structure
housing any iron and steel foundry
emissions source at the iron and steel
foundry, you must not discharge any
fugitive emissions to the atmosphere
from foundry operations that exhibit
opacity greater than 20 percent (6minute average), except for one 6minute average per hour that does not
exceed 27 percent opacity.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) * * *
(i) You must not discharge emissions
of TEA through a conveyance to the
atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(g); or
(ii) You must reduce emissions of
TEA from each TEA cold box mold or
core making line by at least 99 percent,
as determined according to the
performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(g).
(b) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and
maintain a capture and collection
system for all emissions sources subject
to an emissions limit for VOHAP or TEA
in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
I 5. Section 63.7700 is amended by:
I a. Revising the last sentence in
paragraph (b);
I b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and
(ii);
I c. Revising the last sentence in
paragraph (c)(2);
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
part 63, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
I
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:
I
§ 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, August 15, 1994.
(i) NIOSH Method 2010, ‘‘Amines,
Aliphatic,’’ Issue 2, August 15, 1994,
IBR approved for § 63.7732(g)(1)(v) of
Subpart EEEEE of this part.
(ii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart EEEEE—[Amended]
3. Section 63.7681 is amended by
revising the second sentence to read as
follows:
I
§ 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 § 63.2.
4. Section 63.7690 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text;
I b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
I c. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
I d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11)(i) and
(ii); and
I e. Revising paragraph (b)(1)
introductory text to read as follows:
I
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
What emissions limitations must
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
I
I
§ 63.7700 What work practice standards
must I meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * * Any post-consumer engine
blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily
turnings that are processed and/or
cleaned to the extent practicable such
that the materials do not include lead
components, mercury switches,
chlorinated plastics, or free organic
liquids can be included in this
certification.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For scrap charged to a scrap
preheater, electric arc metal melting
furnace, or electric induction metal
melting furnace, specifications for scrap
materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of used oil
filters, chlorinated plastic parts, organic
liquids, and a program to ensure the
scrap materials are drained of free
liquids; or
(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola
metal melting furnace, specifications for
scrap materials to be depleted (to the
extent practicable) of the presence of
chlorinated plastic, and a program to
ensure the scrap materials are drained of
free liquids.
(2) * * * You must either obtain and
maintain onsite a copy of the
procedures used by the scrap supplier
for either removing accessible mercury
switches or for purchasing automobile
bodies that have had mercury switches
removed, as applicable, or document
your attempts to obtain a copy of these
procedures from the scrap suppliers
servicing your area.
(3) * * *
(iii) The inspection procedures must
include provisions for rejecting or
returning entire or partial scrap
shipments that do not meet
specifications and limiting purchases
from vendors whose shipments fail to
meet specifications for more than three
inspections in one calendar year.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) You must operate and maintain a
gas-fired preheater where the flame
directly contacts the scrap charged; or
*
*
*
*
*
I 6. Section 63.7710 is amended by
revising the first sentence in paragraph
(b) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 63.7710 What are my operation and
maintenance requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) You must prepare and operate at
all times according to a written
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
adding paragraph (b)(6) containing
Equation 1;
I d. Revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(5)
and adding paragraph (c)(6) containing
Equation 2;
I e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
text, adding two sentences to the end of
paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph
(d)(2);
I f. Revising paragraph (e)(3);
I g. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and
(f)(3);
I h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2),
and (g)(4);
I i. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii),
(h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and
I j. Adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
(a) You must conduct subsequent
performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or
total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA
emissions limitations in § 63.7690 for
your iron and steel foundry no less
frequently than every 5 years and each
time you elect to change an operating
limit or to comply with a different
alternative emissions limit, if
applicable. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
I 8. Section 63.7732 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraph (a);
I b. Redesignating Equations 1 through
5 as Equations 3 through 7;
I c. Revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5) and
§ 63.7732 What test methods and other
procedures must I use to demonstrate
initial compliance with the emissions
limitations?
(a) You must conduct each
performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry based on your
selected compliance alternative, if
applicable, according to the
requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and the
conditions specified in paragraphs (b)
through (i) of this section.
Q
EFPM = CPM ×
M
charge
Where:
EFPM = Mass emissions rate of PM, pounds
of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged;
CPM = Concentration of PM measured during
performance test run, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry
standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm);
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during
performance test run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run,
minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, grains per
pound (gr/lb).
(c) To determine compliance with the
applicable emissions limit for total
metal HAP in § 63.7690(a)(1) through (6)
t test
×
7,000
for a metal melting furnace, scrap
preheater, pouring station, or pouring
area, follow the test methods and
procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(6) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) A minimum of three valid test
runs are needed to comprise a
performance test.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) For electric arc and electric
induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Q
EFTMHAP = CTMHAP ×
M
charge
Where:
EFTMHAP = Emissions rate of total metal HAP,
pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/
ton) of metal charged;
CTMHAP = Concentration of total metal HAP
measured during performance test run,
gr/dscf;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
(Eq.1)
t test
×
7,000
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas,
dscfm;
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during
performance test run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run,
minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, gr/lb.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
not limited to the following cycles:
Charging, melting, alloying, refining,
slagging, and tapping.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only
during normal production conditions,
which may include, but are not limited
to the following cycles: Charging,
heating, and discharging.
(6) Determine the total mass of metal
charged to the furnace or scrap
preheater during each performance test
run and calculate the total metal HAP
emissions rate (pounds of total metal
HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged)
using Equation 2 of this section:
(Eq. 2)
(d) To determine compliance with the
opacity limit in § 63.7690(a)(7) for
fugitive emissions from buildings or
structures housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron
and steel foundry, follow the procedures
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
ER07FE08.001
§ 63.7731 When must I conduct
subsequent performance tests?
(b) To determine compliance with the
applicable emissions limit for PM in
§ 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal
melting furnace, scrap preheater,
pouring station, or pouring area, follow
the test methods and procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) For electric arc and electric
induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are
not limited to the following cycles:
Charging, melting, alloying, refining,
slagging, and tapping.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only
during normal production conditions,
which may include, but are not limited
to the following cycles: Charging,
heating, and discharging.
(6) Determine the total mass of metal
charged to the furnace or scrap
preheater. For a cupola metal melting
furnace at an existing iron and steel
foundry that is subject to the PM
emissions limit in § 63.7690(a)(ii),
calculate the PM emissions rate in
pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged using Equation 1 of this section:
ER07FE08.000
operation and maintenance plan for
each capture and collection system and
control device for an emissions source
subject to a PM, metal HAP, TEA, or
VOHAP emissions limit in § 63.7690(a).
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
I 7. Section 63.7731 is amended by
revising the first sentence in paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
7219
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
from the building or structure.
Alternatively, a single opacity
observation for the entire building or
structure may be performed, if the
fugitive release points afford such an
observation.
(2) During testing intervals when PM
performance tests, if applicable, are
being conducted, conduct the opacity
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC
emissions limit using Equation 4 of this
section:
VOClimit = 20 ×
CVOHAP, avg
CCEM
(Eq. 4)
Where:
CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of
VOHAP for the source test in ppmv as
measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A or the average
concentration of TGNMO for the source
test in ppmv as hexane as measured by
Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A; and
CCEM = Average concentration of total
hydrocarbons in ppmv as hexane as
measured using the CEMS during the
source test.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
(3) For two or more exhaust streams
from one or more automated conveyor
and pallet cooling lines or automated
shakeout lines, compute the flowweighted average concentration of
VOHAP emissions for each combination
of exhaust streams using Equation 5 of
this section:
i
CW =
i=1
n
∑ Qi
i
(Eq. 5)
i=1
Where:
Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP
or VOC, ppmv (as hexane);
Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from
exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, ppmv (as hexane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from
exhaust stream ‘‘i,’’, dscfm.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Method 18 to determine the TEA
concentration. Alternatively, you may
use NIOSH Method 2010 (incorporated
by reference—see § 63.14) to determine
the TEA concentration provided the
performance requirements outlined in
section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are
satisfied. The sampling option and time
must be sufficiently long such that
either the TEA concentration in the field
sample is at least 5 times the limit of
detection for the analytical method or
the test results calculated using the
laboratory’s reported analytical
detection limit for the specific field
samples are less than 1⁄5 of the
applicable emissions limit. When using
Method 18, the adsorbent tube
approach, as described in section 8.2.4
of Method 18, may be required to
achieve the necessary analytical
detection limits. The sampling time
must be at least 1 hour in all cases.
(2) If you use a wet acid scrubber,
conduct the test as soon as practicable
after adding fresh acid solution and the
system has reached normal operating
conditions.
*
*
*
*
*
% reduction
Creleased = Ci × 1 −
100
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
% reduction =
Ei − Eo
×100%
Ei
(Eq. 6)
Where:
Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control
device inlet, kilograms per hour (kg/hr);
and
Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control
device outlet, kg/hr.
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Calculate the flow-weighted
average emissions limit, considering
only the regulated streams, using
Equation 5 of this section, except Cw is
the flow-weighted average emissions
limit for PM or total metal HAP in the
exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and Ci is the
concentration of PM or total metal HAP
in exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, gr/dscf.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or
total metal HAP concentration of the
combined exhaust stream both before
and after the control device and
calculate the mass removal efficiency of
the control device using Equation 6 of
this section, except Ei is the mass
emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP
at the control device inlet, lb/hr and Eo
is the mass emissions rate of PM or total
metal HAP at the control device outlet,
lb/hr.
(iii) Meet the applicable emissions
limit based on the calculated PM or total
metal HAP concentration for the
regulated emissions sources using
Equation 7 of this section:
(Eq. 7)
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
ER07FE08.006
*
(4) If you are subject to the 99 percent
reduction standard, calculate the mass
emissions reduction using Equation 6 of
this section:
n
∑C Q
ER07FE08.005
Where:
CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv
as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A or the concentration
of TGNMO or TOC in ppmv as hexane
as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A; and
%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream,
percent by volume (dry basis).
(Eq. 3)
ER07FE08.004
10.9%
CVOHAP, 10%O2 = CVOHAP
20.9% − %O 2
test such the opacity observations are
recorded during the PM performance
tests.
(e) * * *
(3) For a cupola metal melting
furnace, correct the measured
concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or
TOC for oxygen content in the gas
stream using Equation 3 of this section:
ER07FE08.003
in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) * * * The certified observer may
identify a limited number of openings or
vents that appear to have the highest
opacities and perform opacity
observations on the identified openings
or vents in lieu of performing
observations for each opening or vent
07FER1
ER07FE08.002
7220
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Where:
Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or
total metal HAP) predicted to be released
to the atmosphere from the regulated
emissions source, gr/dscf; and
Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal
HAP) in the uncontrolled regulated
exhaust stream, gr/dscf.
(i) To determine compliance with an
emissions limit for situations when
multiple sources are controlled by a
single control device, but only one
source operates at a time, or other
situations that are not expressly
considered in paragraphs (b) through (h)
of this section, a site-specific test plan
should be submitted to the
Administrator for approval according to
the requirements in § 63.7(c)(2) and (3).
I 9. Section 63.7733 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), and
(d)(2) to read as follows:
§ 63.7733 What procedures must I use to
establish operating limits?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Compute and record the average
pressure drop and average scrubber
water flow rate for each valid sampling
run in which the applicable emissions
limit is met.
(c) * * *
(2) Compute and record the average
combustion zone temperature for each
valid sampling run in which the
applicable emissions limit is met.
(d) * * *
(2) Compute and record the average
scrubbing liquid flow rate for each valid
sampling run in which the applicable
emissions limit is met.
*
*
*
*
*
I 10. Section 63.7734 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
I b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
I c. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and
(iv);
I d. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) and
(a)(11) to read as follows:
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
§ 63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions limitations
that apply to me?
(a) You have demonstrated initial
compliance with the emissions limits in
§ 63.7690(a) by meeting the applicable
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(11) of this section. When alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a
given emissions source, you are not
restricted in the selection of which
applicable alternative emissions
limitation is used to demonstrate
compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) The average total metal HAP
concentration in the exhaust stream,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/
dscf; or
(iii) The average PM mass emissions
rate, determined according to the
performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.10 pound
of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged;
or
(iv) The average total metal HAP mass
emissions rate, determined according to
the performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.008
pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/
ton) of metal charged.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) For each building or structure
housing any iron and steel foundry
emissions source at the iron and steel
foundry, the opacity of fugitive
emissions from foundry operations
discharged to the atmosphere,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent
(6-minute average), except for one 6minute average per hour that did not
exceed 27 percent opacity.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) For each TEA cold box mold or
core making line in a new or existing
iron and steel foundry, the average TEA
concentration, determined according to
the performance test procedures in
§ 63.7732(g), did not exceed 1 ppmv or
was reduced by 99 percent.
*
*
*
*
*
I 11. Section 63.7736 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the operation and
maintenance requirements that apply to
me?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) You have submitted the bag leak
detection system monitoring
information to the Administrator within
the written O&M plan for approval
according to the requirements of
§ 63.7710(b);
*
*
*
*
*
I 12. Section 63.7740 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraph (b);
I b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)
through (g) as (d) through (h); and
I c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7740 What are my monitoring
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) For each negative pressure
baghouse or positive pressure baghouse
equipped with a stack that is applied to
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7221
meet any PM or total metal HAP
emissions limitation in this subpart, you
must at all times monitor the relative
change in PM loadings using a bag leak
detection system according to the
requirements in § 63.7741(b).
(c) For each baghouse, regardless of
type, that is applied to meet any PM or
total metal HAP emissions limitation in
this subpart, you must conduct
inspections at their specified
frequencies according to the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across
each baghouse cell each day to ensure
pressure drop is within the normal
operating range identified in the
manual.
(2) Confirm that dust is being
removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of
ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply
for pulse-jet baghouses each day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure
proper operation using an appropriate
methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms
for proper functioning through monthly
visual inspections or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag
tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses to ensure that bags are not
kinked (kneed or bent) or lying on their
sides. You do not have to make this
check for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
(7) Confirm the physical integrity of
the baghouse through quarterly visual
inspections of the baghouse interior for
air leaks.
(8) Inspect fans for wear, material
buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration
detectors, or equivalent means.
*
*
*
*
*
I 13. Section 63.7741 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv),
(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv), and
(a)(2)(vi);
I b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text;
I c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii),
(c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and (c)(2)(iv);
I d. Revising paragraph (d)(8); and
I e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:
§ 63.7741 What are the installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements
for my monitors?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect
all components, including all electrical
and mechanical connections, for proper
functioning.
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7222
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(2) * * *
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or
as close as possible to a position that
provides a representative measurement
of the pressure and that minimizes or
eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration,
and internal and external corrosion.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Check the pressure tap for
pluggage daily. If a ‘‘non-clogging’’
pressure tap is used, check for pluggage
monthly.
(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent
device such as a magnahelic or other
pressure indicating transmitter, check
gauge and transducer calibration
quarterly.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect
all components, including all electrical
and mechanical connections, for proper
functioning.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) For each negative pressure
baghouse or positive pressure baghouse
equipped with a stack that is applied to
meet any PM or total metal HAP
emissions limitation in this subpart, you
must install, operate, and maintain a bag
leak detection system according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (7) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Check the pressure tap for
pluggage daily. If a ‘‘non-clogging’’
pressure tap is used, check for pluggage
monthly.
(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent
device such as a magnahelic or other
pressure indicating transmitter, check
gauge and transducer calibration
quarterly.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect
all components, including all electrical
and mechanical connections, for proper
functioning.
(2) * * *
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect
all components, including all electrical
and mechanical connections, for proper
functioning.
(d) * * *
(8) At least monthly, visually inspect
all components, including all electrical
and mechanical connections, for proper
functioning.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect
all components, including all electrical
and mechanical connections, for proper
functioning.
*
*
*
*
*
I 14. Section 63.7743 is amended by:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
a. Adding a second sentence to the
end of paragraph (a) introductory text
and removing the colon after the first
sentence in paragraph (a) in text and
adding period in its place;
I b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and
adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv);
I c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and
I d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:
I
§ 63.7743 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations that apply to me?
(a) * * * When alternative emissions
limitations are provided for a given
emissions source, you must comply
with the alternative emissions limitation
most recently selected as your
compliance alternative.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) Maintaining the average total
metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf; or
(iii) Maintaining the average PM mass
emissions rate at or below 0.10 pound
of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged;
or
(iv) Maintaining the average total
metal HAP mass emissions rate at or
below 0.008 pound of total metal HAP
per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) For each building or structure
housing any iron and steel foundry
emissions source at the iron and steel
foundry, maintaining the opacity of any
fugitive emissions from foundry
operations discharged to the atmosphere
at or below 20 percent opacity (6-minute
average), except for one 6-minute
average per hour that does not exceed
27 percent opacity.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) For each baghouse,
(1) Inspecting and maintaining each
baghouse according to the requirements
of § 63.7740(c)(1) through (8) and
recording all information needed to
document conformance with these
requirements; and
(2) If the baghouse is equipped with
a bag leak detection system, maintaining
records of the times the bag leak
detection system sounded, and for each
valid alarm, the time you initiated
corrective action, the corrective action
taken, and the date on which corrective
action was completed.
*
*
*
*
*
I 15. Section 63.7750 is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (e) introductory text to read
as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 63.7750 What notifications must I submit
and when?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * * For opacity performance
tests, the notification of compliance
status may be submitted with the
semiannual compliance report in
§ 63.7751(a) and (b) or the semiannual
part 70 monitoring report in
§ 63.7551(d).
*
*
*
*
*
I 16. Section 63.7751 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 63.7751
when?
What reports must I submit and
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report. If you had a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction during the
semiannual reporting period that was
not consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan and
the source exceeds any applicable
emissions limitation in § 63.7690, you
must submit an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report
according to the requirements of
§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
*
*
*
*
*
I 17. Section 63.7752 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 63.7752
What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(4) Records of the annual quantity of
each chemical binder or coating
material used to coat or make molds and
cores, the Material Data Safety Sheet or
other documentation that provides the
chemical composition of each
component, and 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 Sheets or other
documentation).
*
*
*
*
*
I 18. Section 63.7765 is amended by:
I a. Revising the definition for
‘‘Deviation’’;
I b. Adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ‘‘Offblast’’ and ‘‘On
blast’’; and
I c. Revising the definitions ‘‘Scrap
preheater’’ and adding ‘‘Total metal
HAP’’ to read as follows:
§ 63.7765
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source or an owner or
operator of such an affected source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
7223
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
including, but not limited to, any
emissions limitation (including
operating limits), work practice
standard, or operation and maintenance
requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any iron and steel foundry
required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions
limitation (including operating limits)
or work practice standard in this
subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or
not such failure is permitted by this
subpart.
A deviation is not always a violation.
The determination of whether a
deviation constitutes a violation of the
standard is up to the discretion of the
entity responsible for enforcement of the
standards.
*
*
*
*
*
Off blast means those periods of
cupola operation when the cupola is not
actively being used to produce molten
metal. Off blast conditions include
cupola startup when air is introduced to
the cupola to preheat the sand bed and
other 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.
On blast means those periods of
cupola operation when combustion
(blast) air is introduced to the cupola
furnace and the furnace is capable of
producing molten metal. On blast
conditions are characterized by both
blast air introduction and molten metal
production.
Scrap preheater means a vessel or
other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting
furnace feed is heated to a temperature
high enough to eliminate volatile
impurities or other tramp materials by
direct flame heating or similar means of
heating. Scrap dryers, which solely
remove moisture from metal scrap, are
not considered to be scrap preheaters for
purposes of this subpart.
Total metal HAP means, for the
purposes of this subpart, 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 the
quantitation limit of the analytical
method are to be used in the sum. If any
of the analytes are not detected or are
detected at concentrations less than onehalf the quantitation limit of the
analytical method, the concentration of
those analytes will be assumed to be
zero for the purposes of calculating the
total metal HAP for this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
19. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is
amended by revising the entry for § 63.9
to read as follows:
I
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART EEEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEEE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Citation
Subject
Applies to subpart EEEEE?
Explanation
*
63.9 ....................................
*
*
Notification requirements ...
*
Yes .....................................
*
*
*
Except: for opacity performance tests, Subpart EEEEE
allows the notification of compliance status to be
submitted with the semiannual compliance report or
the semiannual part 70 monitoring report.
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
The closure is effective 6 a.m.,
local time, February 5, 2008, through 6
a.m., January 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824–
5305, fax: 727–824–5308, e-mail:
Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov.
DATES:
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 001005281–0369–02]
RIN 0648–XF24
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal
Migratory Pelagic Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic;
Closure
15:02 Feb 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
The
fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish
(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero,
cobia, little tunny, and, in the Gulf of
Mexico only, dolphin and bluefish) is
managed under the Fishery
Management Plan for the Coastal
Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP).
The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial
run-around gillnet fishery for king
mackerel in the exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the southern Florida west
coast subzone. This closure is necessary
to protect the Gulf king mackerel
resource.
[FR Doc. E8–1979 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
*
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Management Councils (Councils) and is
implemented under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622.
Based on the Councils’ recommended
total allowable catch and the allocation
ratios in the FMP, on April 30, 2001 (66
FR 17368, March 30, 2001), NMFS
implemented a commercial quota of
2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg) for the
eastern zone (Florida) of the Gulf
migratory group of king mackerel. That
quota is further divided into separate
quotas for the Florida east coast subzone
and the northern and southern Florida
west coast subzones. On April 27, 2000,
NMFS implemented the final rule (65
FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided
the Florida west coast subzone of the
eastern zone into northern and southern
subzones, and established their separate
quotas. The quota implemented for the
southern Florida west coast subzone is
1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg). That quota is
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7210-7223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034; FRL-8522-4]
RIN 2060-AM85
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing amendments to the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries.
These final 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: These final amendments are effective on February 7, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these
amendments is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
February 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
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:
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
[[Page 7211]]
III. Summary of the Final Amendments Made Since Proposal
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. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Language of Proposed Alternative Emissions Limits
B. Mercury Emissions Limit
C. Information on Mercury Switch Removal from Scrap Suppliers
V. 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 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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these
final amendments 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. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final 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.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial
review of these final amendments is available only by filing a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by April 7, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to these final amendments that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final amendments may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.
II. Background Information
The NESHAP for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEEE) establishes emissions limitations and work practice requirements
for the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from foundry
operations. The NESHAP implements section 112(d) of the CAA by
requiring all iron and steel foundries that are major sources of HAP to
meet standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The compliance date for most of the subpart EEEEE
requirements was April 23, 2007.
After publication of the NESHAP (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the
American Foundry Society, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and
the Steel Founders' Society of America filed petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. The American Foundry Society and the
Steel Founders' Society of America also filed petitions for review of
the final rule (Steel Founders' Society of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-
1190, DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-1191,
DC Cir.). The concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the work
practice standards for scrap management have been resolved by rule
amendments issued on May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel Founders'
Society of America petitioned the court for voluntary dismissal of
their petition for review on March 23, 2006, and the court granted that
petition on May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge to the NESHAP
remaining before the court is the American Foundry Society petition for
review, No. 04-1191.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a
notice of a proposed settlement agreement between EPA and the
petitioner (72 FR 1986, January 17, 2007) and provided a 30-day comment
period which ended on February 16, 2007. The settlement agreement
became final on March 9, 2007. On April 17, 2007 (72 FR 19150), we
proposed rule amendments which addressed the need for alternative
emissions limits for cupolas at existing foundries and clarification of
other rule requirements as set forth in Attachment A to the settlement
agreement. The proposed amendments also included corrections to a few
minor editorial errors.
These final amendments are materially the same as the proposed
amendments. EPA expects these final amendments to resolve the remaining
issues raised by the petitioner.
III. Summary of Final Amendments and Changes Made Since Proposal
These final amendments include two changes since proposal. The
first change is in the wording used to describe the emission limit for
the new compliance option for cupola melting furnaces; instead of
abbreviating the limit as lb/
[[Page 7212]]
ton of particulate matter (PM) (or total metal HAP), we expressly state
the limit as pound of PM (or total metal HAP) per ton of metal charged.
We intend this as a clarification, not as a substantive change from
what we proposed. We are also correcting a publication error in the
definition of ``deviation'' as published at 72 FR 19164. All other
final amendments are exactly as proposed.
A. Emissions Limitations
1. New Compliance Options for Cupola Metal Melting Furnaces
These final amendments add a new compliance option to Sec.
73.7690(a)(2) of the NESHAP. The new alternative emissions limits for
cupola metal melting furnaces at existing iron and steel foundries
allows the use of control technologies that are designed on a mass
removal basis rather than an outlet concentration basis. The levels of
the new alternative emissions limits are the same as proposed: 0.10
pound of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pound of total HAP per
ton of metal charged. In response to public comment, we have revised
the manner in which the emissions limits are stated in the rule for
clarity. We have also revised associated compliance provisions in
Sec. Sec. 63.7732(b)(6) and (c)(6), 63.7734(a)(2)(iii) and (iv), and
63.7743(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to refer to the new alternative limits in
terms of pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged or pounds of
total metal HAP per ton of metal charged instead of lb/ton of PM or lb/
ton of total metal HAP, respectively.
2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit
These final amendments specify that the opacity limitations apply
only to buildings that house iron and steel foundry emissions sources.
If nonfoundry operations are housed in the same building as the foundry
operations, the foundry must comply with the opacity limits for that
building.
3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit
These final amendments replace the reference to test conditions
(``as determined when scrubbing with fresh acid solution'') with the
phrase ``according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(g)'' since Sec. 63.7732(g) contains the requirement to conduct
the test when scrubbing with fresh acid solution.
B. Work Practice Standards
1. Capture and Collection Systems
These final amendments delete the word ``standard'' from 40 CFR
63.7690(b)(1) to clarify that capture and collection systems are
required for emissions sources subject to an emissions limit but not
for emissions sources subject to work practice standards.
2. Scrap Management
These final amendments specify that ``chlorinated'' plastics are
to be removed from the scrap material (instead of all plastic). These
final amendments also revise the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2)
for the owner or operator to obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had the
switches removed. These final amendments include an alternative
procedure that allows the plant to document their attempts to obtain a
copy of the procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing their area.
We note, however, that under 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2) the materials
acquisition program must specify that the scrap supplier remove
accessible mercury switches from the trunks and hoods of any automotive
bodies contained in the scrap in addition to accessible lead components
such as batteries and wheel weights. It is incumbent on the foundry
owner or operator to communicate these specifications to their scrap
suppliers.
3. Scrap Preheaters
The existing rule requires the owner or operator to install,
operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater according to 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(1) or charge only certain materials according to 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(2). These final amendments revise the language of Sec.
63.7700(e)(1) to clarify that foundries are not required to install
gas-fired preheaters when not necessary for foundry operations. It was
not our intent to mandate installation of preheaters, but rather to
establish requirements for those existing facilities that use scrap
preheaters in lieu of selecting the option in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2).
Therefore, these final amendments clarify Sec. 63.7700(e)(1) by
deleting the word ``install''. Instead, these final amendments require
the owner or operator to operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater
where the flame directly contacts the scrap charged.
C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
These final amendments clarify that the requirement in 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(2) applies to each capture and collection system and control
device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP,
triethylamine (TEA), or volatile organic hazardous pollutants (VOHAP)
emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a).
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. These final amendments clarify our original intent
to allow foundries to demonstrate compliance with any of the applicable
alternative emissions limitations that are provided for a specific
emissions source. When multiple alternative emissions limitations are
provided for a specific emissions source, iron and steel foundries can
demonstrate initial compliance with any of the alternative limits; they
are not required to comply with all of the alternative emissions limits
at any one time. These final amendments also clarify a facility's
ability to change their selected compliance alternative and the
procedures needed to effect that change. However, regarding continuous
compliance, the facility is expected to continuously comply with the
alternative emissions limit that was selected as their compliance
option as demonstrated in their most recent performance test. The
facility may choose to alter their selected alternative but must
continue to comply with the previously selected alternative until they
successfully demonstrate compliance with the new alternative emissions
limitation.
We are also finalizing requirements for determining initial
compliance for cupola melting furnaces at existing iron and steel
foundries that are subject to the new mass rate emissions limit. The
final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) include new equations for
determining PM or total metal HAP emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton
of metal charged format. Other amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c)
clarify test methods source sampling requirements.
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
[[Page 7213]]
emissions sources are operating is redundant and imposes unnecessary
costs because the control device should perform the same on each
identical furnace. These final amendments resolve the petitioner's
concern by adding a new provision to the performance test requirements.
As proposed, the final amendment requires foundries to submit a site-
specific test plan for the situation described by the petitioner or
other situations not expressly considered in 40 CFR 63.7734. The site-
specific test plan, which is subject to approval by the Administrator,
will explain the procedures that would be followed during the test,
such as operation of the unit or units at the maximum operating
condition of the control system. The Administrator or delegated
authority will determine on a case-by-case basis if one representative
furnace/control device configuration may be tested.
2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc Furnaces, Electric Induction
Furnaces, and Scrap Preheaters
As proposed, we are clarifying the sampling instructions in 40 CFR
63.7732(c)(4) and (5) to state that the initial compliance
demonstrations for electric arc metal melting furnaces, electric
induction metal melting furnaces, and scrap preheaters must be
conducted under normal production conditions. These final amendments
require sampling during normal operating conditions, which may include
charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging, and tapping (for a
furnace) or charging, heating, and discharging (for a scrap preheater).
3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total Metal HAP
As proposed, these final amendments remove the requirement in 40
CFR 63.7732(c)(2) for a minimum sample volume for test runs by EPA
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) because the method already
includes such a requirement.
4. Opacity Test
Section 63.7732(d) of the existing NESHAP establishes the
requirements for opacity tests. These final amendments instruct the
certified observer how to take opacity readings by Method 9 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A) for a building that has many openings. As
proposed, these final amendments allow the observer to take readings
from a limited number of openings or vents that appear to have the
highest opacities instead of making observations for each opening or
vent from the building or structure. Alternatively, a single
observation for the entire building is allowed if the fugitive release
points afford such an observation. These final amendments also revise
the language of 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(2) to clarify that opacity tests are
to be conducted during PM performance tests, but that PM performance
tests are not required to occur during the semiannual opacity tests.
5. Alternative Test Method
Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the existing NESHAP requires the use of
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the TEA
concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core-making line.
As proposed, these final amendments allow NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines,
Aliphatic'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) as an
alternative to EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) provided the
performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are
satisfied. Method 2010 is included in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods (4th edition, NIOSH Publication 94-113, August 1994). The
manual is available from the Government Printing Office and the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), NTIS publication No.
PB95154191. The NIOSH method may also be found on the NIOSH Web site at
the following address: www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/method-4000.html.
6. Procedures for Establishing Operating Limits
As proposed, these final amendments clarify the procedures for
establishing control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7733(b)
through (d) by deleting the reference to the 3-hour average from the
test procedures. These final amendments specify that the owner or
operator is to compute and record the average operating parameter value
for each valid sampling run in which the applicable limit is met.
7. Repeat Performance Tests
As proposed, these final amendments revise the requirements for
repeat performance in 40 CFR 63.7731(a) to clarify that demonstrating
compliance by one method does not preclude a plant from demonstrating
compliance using an alternative method at a later date. A plant may
elect to demonstrate compliance with an alternative emissions limit
during the repeat performance tests conducted at least every 5 years.
Furthermore, a plant may elect to conduct a performance test earlier
than 5 years in order to change an operating limit or to demonstrate
compliance with a different alternative emissions limit. A test
conducted for the purpose of changing operating limits is subject to
notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.7750(d).
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). As
proposed, these final amendments include monitoring requirements for
the visual inspection of positive pressure baghouses that are not
equipped with a stack. As proposed, these final amendments to 40 CFR
63.7740(b) clarify the text to ensure that the requirements in this
paragraph for installing and using a bag leak detection system apply
only to negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses
equipped with a stack. The inspection requirements are separated and
placed in a new paragraph (c) and clarified to state that the
inspection requirements apply to each baghouse regardless of type.
These final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740 also renumber the paragraphs
which follow new paragraph (c). Similar clarifications are made to the
requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance in 40 CFR
63.7743(c).
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). As proposed, these final amendments to 40 CFR
63.7736(c)(1) revise this provision to clarify that submission of the
monitoring plan independent of the operation and maintenance plan is
not necessary. Our intent is to include the bag leak detection system
information in the operation and maintenance plan to streamline the
approval process and avoid the administrative costs associated with a
separate submission.
[[Page 7214]]
In addition, having one integrated plan will provide a centralized
reference tool for control device operation and maintenance
requirements.
3. Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Requirements for Monitors
As proposed, these final amendments revise the requirements for
operation and maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems to
more clearly describe the inspection requirements. Under the operation
and maintenance requirements for flow measurement devices in 40 CFR
63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator must perform monthly
inspections of all flow sensor components for integrity, all electrical
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
These final amendments change this provision to require a monthly
visual inspection of all components, including all electrical and
mechanical connections for proper functioning. The same changes are
made to the monthly inspection requirements for other types of
monitoring devices in Sec. Sec. 63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi),
(c)(2)(iv), (d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv).
As proposed, these final amendments also revise the requirement for
pressure measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ``daily check of the pressure tap for
pluggage.'' We are requiring a daily check for pluggage when using a
regular pressure tap and a monthly check when using a non-clogging
pressure tap. These final amendments also clarify the requirements for
pressure measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the use of a manometer or equivalent device
for calibrations.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
As proposed, these final amendments clarify two of the
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4). The requirement for
the annual quantity of chemical binder or coating materials used to
make molds and cores is revised to require the annual quantity of
chemical binder or coating materials used to coat or make molds and
cores. (We inadvertently omitted the word ``coat'' from the original
rule language.) The final requirement for records of the annual
quantity of HAP used states that records are required of the annual
quantity of HAP used in these chemical binder or coating materials at
the foundry, as calculated from the recorded quantities and chemical
compositions (from Material Data Safety Sheet or other documentation).
This final amendment clarifies that the HAP records requirement is
specific to the chemicals used in the mold and core-making and coating
operations and not to other HAP materials used at the foundry such as
solvents used to clean or degrease equipment.
These final amendments to the reporting requirements allow
foundries to report the results of the semiannual opacity tests within
the semiannual reports rather than having to submit these semiannual
documents separately. Other final amendments to the reporting
requirements clarify the requirements for an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report by adding the same language used in 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). These final amendments require an immediate report
if a foundry has a startup, shutdown, or malfunction and exceeds any
applicable emissions limitation in 40 CFR 63.7690.
G. Definitions
We are amending the definition of the term ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.7765 to clarify that the enforcement authority determines if a
deviation is a violation. The proposed amendment appeared at 72 FR
19164: however, due to a publication error, the new language was added
after the first sentence of the original definition, rather than at the
end. In these final amendments, we are correcting the placement of the
new language.
As proposed, we are adding definitions of the terms ``off blast''
and ``on blast'' to 40 CFR 63.7765. The term ``off blast'' is defined
as those periods of cupola operation when the cupola is not actively
being used to produce molten metal. Off-blast conditions include cupola
startup procedures as defined in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. Off-blast conditions also include idling conditions when the
blast air is turned off or down to the point that the cupola does not
produce additional molten metal. The term ``on blast'' means those
periods of cupola operation when combustion (blast) air is introduced
to the cupola furnace and the furnace is capable of producing molten
metal. On blast conditions are characterized by both blast air
introduction and molten metal production.
As proposed, these final amendments revise the definition of
``total metal HAP'' to specify the analytes to be included and how non-
detect values are to be used in calculating the total metal HAP
quantity. The definition of ``total metal HAP'' is the sum of the
concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by
EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only the measured
concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations
exceeding one-half of the quantification limit of the analytical method
are used in the sum. If any of the analytes are not detected or are
detected at concentrations less than one-half the quantification limit
of the analytical method, the concentration of those analytes is
assumed to be zero for the purposes of calculating the total metal HAP
for this subpart.
As proposed, we are also clarifying the definition of ``scrap
preheater'' to differentiate scrap dryers that are used solely to
remove moisture from the scrap metal from scrap preheaters. The revised
definition of ``scrap preheater'' states that scrap dryers, which are
used solely to remove water from metal scrap that does not contain any
volatile impurities or other tramp materials, are not considered to be
scrap preheaters for purposes of this subpart.
H. Applicability
As proposed, we are revising the applicability provisions in 40 CFR
63.7681 to reference the definition of ``major source'' in 40 CFR 63.2.
This amendment clarifies that when we refer to a ``major source'' of
hazardous air pollutants in 40 CFR 63.7681, we are referring to the
definition of major source in 40 CFR 63.2, and not, for example, to the
definition of major source in 40 CFR 51.166.
I. Editorial Corrections
As proposed, we are correcting a grammatical error in 40 CFR
63.7710(b), which should refer to an emissions source subject to a
(rather than ``an'') PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in 40
CFR 63.7690(a). A comma is added to 40 CFR 63.7734(a)(11). The words
``as possible'' are added to 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i). The final
amendments also correct a misspelling of the word ``calendar'' in 40
CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii).
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Language of Proposed Alternative Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed
alternative standards for PM or total metal HAP and conforming
amendments. However, the commenter believed that the wording of the
proposed limit for total metal HAP is ambiguous even though the meaning
is clear in context. According to the commenter, the proposed limit for
total metal HAP (0.008 lb/ton of total metal
[[Page 7215]]
HAP) could be construed to mean that the standard is 0.008 pounds of
some unspecified substance per ton of total metal HAP emitted. The
commenter recommended that EPA clarify the language to read ``0.008
pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged'' which
would be consistent with the language in Sec. 63.7690(a)(ii) for the
proposed alternative PM limit.
Response: Section 63.7690(a)(2)(ii) of the proposed amendments
establishes the alternative limit for PM as 0.10 pound of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of metal charged; the lb/ton abbreviation is then used in
Sec. 63.7690(a)(2)(iv) for the total metal HAP limit. While we agree
with the commenter that the meaning is clear in context, we have
revised the language for the total metal HAP limit to read according to
the commenter's suggestion. For additional clarity, we have revised the
wording of both limits when they appear in conforming amendments to
read ``pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged'' and ``pound of
total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.''
B. Mercury Emissions Limit
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA adopt stand-alone
mercury emissions standards similar to those in New Jersey.\1\ The
commenter explained that the rule requires iron and steel melters (at
both foundries and steel production plants) to meet a mercury emissions
limit of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or, in the
alternative, reduce mercury emissions by 75 percent using a mercury
control apparatus. The emission limit, which becomes effective in
January 2010, can be achieved through source separation measures and,
if necessary, additional exhaust controls. According to the commenter,
the emissions limit determines the success of the source separation
program and the need for add-on mercury control measures on the melter
exhaust. The commenter stated that one foundry had recently installed
an activated carbon injection system for mercury control and a baghouse
serving the cupola and that test results show greater than 90 percent
mercury control and emissions less than 3 mg/ton. According to the
commenter, other facilities with existing fabric filter control are
testing carbon injection and have reported compliance with the mercury
emissions limit but have not submitted formal test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection mercury regulations for iron and steel scrap melting
specify that mercury emissions from each melter shall not exceed 35
megagrams per ton of steel produced. Alternatively, mercury
emissions as measured at the exit of the mercury control apparatus
must be reduced by at least 75 percent (N.J.A.C. 7:27-27.6). These
rules have been upheld by the Appellate Division of the State
Superior Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As described in the preamble to the final NESHAP for Iron
and Steel Foundries (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the control systems
used at iron and steel foundries at the time the NESHAP was developed
were not effective in reducing mercury emissions. The pollution
prevention measure of removing mercury switches from automotive scrap
was determined to be a cost-effective ``beyond the MACT floor''
requirement and was included as a requirement in the final NESHAP as
part of the scrap selection and inspection program. The final NESHAP
was projected to reduce mercury emissions by 2,800 pounds per year at a
cost of $3.6 million per year (which includes increased cost of scrap
for removing the mercury switches). We recognize that there are other
mercury-containing devices in automotive scrap so that the pollution
prevention program required by the final NESHAP does not eliminate all
mercury from the scrap. At the time the NESHAP was developed, we
considered requirements for more stringent mercury reduction
requirements, either through additional scrap inspection and selection
inspection requirements specific to other mercury-containing devices or
through innovative mercury controls. Based on the small quantities of
mercury in these other devices, these options were determined to be
cost-ineffective.
A re-evalulation of the MACT floor for the Iron and Steel NESHAP in
light of new control systems added to iron and steel foundries since
the NESHAP was first promulgated is outside the scope of the current
package of amendments. We did not include or take comment on a separate
mercury limit in our April 17, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Therefore, we are not including specific emission limits for mercury in
the final amendments. A technology review of the MACT standards is
required by the CAA eight years after promulgation. These newly
installed mercury controls will be considered in detail during this
technology review.
C. Information on Mercury Switch Removal From Scrap Suppliers
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should not revise Sec.
63.7700(b)(2) to eliminate the requirement that facilities buy scrap
only from suppliers willing to provide a copy of their procedures for
ensuring that mercury switches are removed from automobile bodies that
they supply. The commenter believed that no supplier will do this
unless foundries require it because suppliers that do provide a copy of
their procedures will be at a disadvantage to suppliers that either do
not remove the mercury switches or are unwilling to document their
removal procedures. According to the commenter, under the proposed
amendments, suppliers would not be penalized as they are under the
existing rule.
The commenter stated that this proposed amendment increases mercury
emissions and that EPA did not provide an estimate of the health,
environmental, and economic impacts of the increase. The commenter also
claimed that because of limitations currently enforced on some sources,
the proposed amendment reduces the stringency of the rule below the
MACT floor for new sources and possibly for existing sources. According
to the commenter, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the CAA.
Response: The amendment does not absolve the iron and steel foundry
from the responsibility to use automotive scrap that has had accessible
mercury switches removed. In previous amendments to the NESHAP (70 FR
29400, May 20, 2005), we included provisions for foundries to perform
inspections at the scrap supplier. Thus, the foundry should be able to
verify whether the supplier in fact removes accessible mercury
switches. The reason for the amendment is to clarify that EPA is not
imposing a regulatory burden on the scrap supplier through this rule.
EPA is not requiring scrap suppliers to provide the foundry with
written procedures for ensuring the mercury switches are removed.
Nevertheless, because we require foundries to purchase only automotive
scrap that has had accessible mercury switches removed from the trunks
and hoods of automobile bodies, a foundry is much more likely to do
business with a scrap supplier that supplies written procedures than
with one that does not. It is incumbent on the foundry to document
their attempt to obtain written procedures and to ensure, through site
inspections or other means, that any automotive scrap that they
purchase from their suppliers has had accessible mercury switches
removed from the trunks and hoods.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
[[Page 7216]]
October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the
Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
These final amendments add a new compliance alternative, allow a new
alternative test method, and clarify requirements in the existing rule.
One amendment to the baghouse monitoring requirements clarifies our
original intent to require inspections of positive pressure baghouses
not equipped with a stack. No new burden is associated with this
requirement because the burden was included in the approved information
collection request (ICR) for the existing rule. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0543, EPA ICR number 2096.03. A copy of the OMB-approved ICR may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail
at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672.
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 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 these final amendments
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS
codes 331511, 331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic impacts of these final amendments on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
There would not be any adverse impacts on any source (including any
small entity) as a result of the final amendments because the final
amendments do not create any new requirements or burdens that were not
already included in the economic impact assessment for the existing
rule. These final amendments relieve regulatory burden for all entities
as a result of the operational flexibility afforded by the alternative
compliance option, alternative test method, and provisions allowing
plants to combine multiple reports into a single submission. We have
therefore concluded that these final amendments will relieve regulatory
burden for all affected small entities.
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
one 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 these final amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The final amendments are expected to
result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector
and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments.
Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that these final
amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. These final amendments
[[Page 7217]]
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.''
These final amendments do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final
amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these final
amendments.
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.'' These final amendments do not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final
amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these final amendments.
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 final amendments are
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
These final amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they
are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The
VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use
available and applicable VCS.
These final amendments involve technical standards. Therefore the
Agency conducted a search to identify potential VCS in addition to the
EPA and alternative method. However, we identified no such standards
and none were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore EPA has
decided to use an alternative methodology, the NIOSH Method 2010,
``Amines, Aliphatic'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.14) for
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the TEA
concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core making line
provided the performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA
Method 18 are satisfied.
For the methods required or referenced by these final amendments, a
source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods
or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under Sec. Sec.
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.
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 final amendments will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures
on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final
amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final amendments in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final amendments will be effective
on February 7, 2008.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
[[Page 7218]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 23, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I,
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
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, August 15, 1994.
(i) NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines, Aliphatic,'' Issue 2, August 15,
1994, IBR approved for Sec. 63.7732(g)(1)(v) of Subpart EEEEE of this
part.
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart EEEEE--[Amended]
0
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.
0
4. Section 63.7690 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11)(i) and (ii); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet the emissions limits or standards in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (11) of this section that apply to you. When alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a given emissions source, you
are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative
emissions limitation is used to demonstrate compliance.
* * * * *
(2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total
metal HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section:
(i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM; or
(ii) 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged, or
(iii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP; or
(iv) 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged.
* * * * *
(7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, you must not
discharge any fugitive emissions to the atmosphere from foundry
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed
27 percent opacity.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(i) You must not discharge emissions of TEA through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(g); or
(ii) You must reduce emissions of TEA from each TEA cold box mold
or core making line by at least 99 percent, as determined according to
the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(g).
(b) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture and
collection system for all emissions sources subject to an emissions
limit for VOHAP or TEA in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.7700 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
c. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (c)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) * * * Any post-consumer engine blocks, post-consumer oil
filters, or oily turnings that are processed and/or cleaned to the
extent practicable such that the materials do not include lead
components, mercury switches, chlorinated plastics, or free organic
liquids can be included in this certification.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater, electric arc metal
melting furnace, or electric induction metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, organic liquids, and a program to ensure the scrap materials are
drained of free liquids; or
(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of chlorinated plastic, and a program to
ensure the scrap materials are drained of free liquids.
(2) * * * You must either obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had
mercury switches removed, as applicable, or document your attempts to
obtain a copy of these procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing
your area.
(3) * * *
(iii) The inspection procedures must include provisions for
rejecting or returning entire or partial scrap shipments that do not
meet specifications and limiting purchases from vendors whose shipments
fail to meet specifications for more than three inspections in one
calendar year.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) You must operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the
flame directly contacts the scrap charged; or
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.7710 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written
[[Page 7219]]
operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection system
and control device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP,
TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a). * * *
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.7731 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA
emissions limitations in Sec. 63.7690 for your iron and steel foundry
no less frequently than every 5 years and each time you elect to change
an operating limit or to comply with a different alternative emissions
limit, if applicable. * * *
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.7732 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating Equations 1 through 5 as Equations 3 through 7;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5) and
adding paragraph (b)(6) containing Equation 1;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and
(c)(5) and adding paragraph (c)(6) containing Equation 2;
0
e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, adding two sentences to
the end of paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraph (e)(3);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and (f)(3);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2), and (g)(4);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and
0
j. Adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry based on your selected compliance alternative,
if applicable, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
(b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
PM in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting furnace,
scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section.
* * * * *
(4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production conditions, which may include, but
are not limited to the following cycles: Charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are not limited to the following
cycles: Charging, heating, and discharging.
(6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or
scrap preheater. For a cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron
and steel foundry that is subject to the PM emissions limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(ii), calculate the PM emissions rate in pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of metal charged using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.000
Where:
EFPM = Mass emissions rate of PM, pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of metal charged;
CPM = Concentration of PM measured during performance
test run, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry standard cubic feet per
minute (dscfm);
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during performance test
run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run, minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, grains per pound (gr/lb).
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
total metal HAP in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting
furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
* * * * *
(2) A minimum of three valid test runs are needed to comprise a
performance test.
* * * * *
(4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production conditions, which may include, but
are not limited to the following cycles: Charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are not limited to the following
cycles: Charging, heating, and discharging.
(6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or
scrap preheater during each performance test run and calculate the
total metal HAP emissions rate (pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/
ton) of metal charged) using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.001
Where:
EFTMHAP