For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e.,
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Based on facility-wide emissions, the estimated inhalation cancer
MIR is 60-in-1 million, mainly driven by the Iron and Steel Foundries
major source category, specifically by naphthalene and benzene from
steel foundries mold and core making processes and by benzene from
steel foundries pouring, cooling, and shakeout processes. The total
estimated cancer incidence from the facility-wide analysis is 0.02
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 50 years.
Approximately 164,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks at or
above 1-in-1 million, and 7,200 of these people were estimated to have
cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million, from exposure to HAP emitted
from sources that are part of the Iron and Steel Foundries major source
category and sources that are not part of the source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI (neurological) is estimated to be 0.9,
mainly driven by emissions of lead and manganese compound emissions
from non-category fugitive sources. Emissions from non-category sources
are described in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for
this action.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Iron and Steel
Foundries source category across different

demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions for the population living within
50 km of the facilities.

                       Table 3--Iron and Steel Foundries Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Population with
                                                                           cancer risk at or    Population with
                                                                             above 1-in-1      chronic HI at or
                        Item                              Nationwide        million due to      above 1 due to
                                                                            iron and steel      iron and steel
                                                                               foundries           foundries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................        317,746,049             144,053                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...............................................                 62                  66                   0
Minority............................................                 38                  34                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American....................................                 12                  16                   0
Native American.....................................                0.8                 0.2                   0
Hispanic or Latino includes white and nonwhite).....                 18                  15                   0
Other and Multiracial...............................                  7                   4                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................                 14                  20                   0
Above Poverty Level.................................                 86                  80                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.............                 14                  19                   0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..............                 86                  81                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.............................                  6                   4                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 144,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and zero people to a chronic noncancer HI greater than or equal
to 1. The African American population exposed to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million due to iron and steel foundries emissions is 4
percent above the national average. Likewise, populations living
``Below Poverty Level'' and ``Over 25 and without High School Diploma''
are exposed to cancer risk above 1-in-1 million, 6 and 4 percent above
the national average, respectively. The percentages of the at-risk
population in other demographic groups are similar to or lower than
their respective nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Iron and Steel
Foundries, available in the docket for this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). For the Iron and
Steel Foundries major source category, the risk analysis estimates that
the maximum cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 50-in-1
million due to actual emissions or allowable emissions. This risk is
less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation
exposures for the source category is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year,
or one excess case every 50 years. We estimate that approximately
144,000 people face an increased cancer risk greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this
source category. The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure, 0.5 (spleen), is less than 1.
The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts
estimates a maximum acute HQ of 1 (due to arsenic) based on the REL.
With regard to multipathway human health risks, we estimate the maximum
cancer risk for the highest exposed individual is 20-in-1 million (due
to POM) and the maximum noncancer chronic HI is less than 1 for all the
PB-HAP.

    Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable. The
estimated cancer risks are below the presumptive limit of
acceptability, and the noncancer risk results indicate there is minimal
likelihood of adverse noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions
from this source category.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied to further reduce the risks
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP from the source category.
In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review,
risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any controls or other measures that would reduce risk
further and would be required to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.
    Our risk analysis estimates that the maximum individual cancer risk
is 50-in-1 million from the Iron and Steel Foundries major source
category and that 144,000 people may be exposed to cancer risk
exceeding 1-in-1 million. Therefore, we evaluated the sources and HAP
that contribute most to these risks and assessed control options that
would result in reducing these cancer risks. Based on our analysis,
these cancer risks are driven largely by naphthalene, benzene, and PAH
emissions from PCS lines and by naphthalene emissions from mold and
core making operations. However, HAP metals also pose cancer risks, as
described below.
    With regard to organic HAP, three potential emission reduction
measures were identified: Low-emitting binder formulations, carbon
adsorption, and thermal oxidizers. In addition, one potential emission
reduction measure for metal HAP was identified: Capture systems
combined with a particulate control device (e.g., scrubber or
baghouse). Our evaluation of these emission reduction options are
discussed below.
a. Low-Emitting Binder Formulations for Organic HAP Emissions Reduction
    Low-emitting or ``green'' binder formulations may include inorganic
binder formulations or organic binder formulations with reduced levels
of HAP and/or total organics. Reduced organic HAP content in the
chemical binders leads to reductions in organic HAP emissions from the
mold and core making operations. Organic HAP emissions from PCS lines
are impacted by both the HAP content of the binders and the total
organic content of the binders available for pyrolysis when exposed to
molten metal. Therefore, a binder system with low HAP content but with
a high overall organic content may still have substantial emissions
during the PCS process. Thus, there are some difficulties determining
whether an organic binder system is ``low emitting,'' and testing
generally would be needed to ensure an alternative organic binder
system would reduce emissions for the facility when considering mold
and core making and PCS emissions combined. Inorganic binder systems,
on the other hand, are generally effective at reducing HAP emissions
from both mold and core making operations and PCS lines and may be
considered ``low-emitting'' with limited or no additional testing.
However, inorganic binder systems may not be practical or feasible in
some applications.
    Different binder systems exist because of their different
properties and capabilities. The size, shape, and tolerance of the
castings, the production volume, and the environmental conditions
(temperature and humidity) must all be considered when selecting a
binder system. Some binder formulations may have poor performance when
the humidity is high; some may be negatively impacted by high or low
ambient temperatures; some may not have the strength needed for large
castings, while others may be too durable, making them difficult to
separate from the metal castings (increasing shakeout times). Based on
the myriad of conditions impacting binder selection, there is no single
binder system that will work in all applications, and we cannot
determine if a low-emitting binder alternative is available for all
applications. As such, we conclude that it would be inappropriate to
propose a national emissions standard requiring the use of low-emitting
binder systems. We recognize that some facilities may be able to meet
tighter organic HAP emission limits, if established, using low-emitting
binder systems; however, there would likely be cases where low-emitting
binder systems could not meet production performance requirements and,
therefore, other control options might be needed. Therefore, we are not
proposing any requirements based on use of binders to reduce emissions.
However, we solicit comments and data on the potential use of low
emitting binders to reduce organic HAP emissions and whether any such
requirement should be considered for the Iron and Steel Foundries
NESHAP.
b. Carbon Adsorption and Thermal Oxidizers for Organic HAP Emissions
Reduction
    Carbon adsorption and thermal oxidizers are both add-on control
measures for organic HAP that we identified and considered for control
of PCS lines during the development of the MACT standard for major
source iron and steel foundries (67 FR 78292). These control systems
are also applicable to mold and core making operations, and we expect
that the design and performance of these controls when applied to mold
and core making operations would be similar to that for PCS lines. The
control efficiency for a carbon adsorption system is typically 90 to 95
percent, while thermal oxidizers typically achieve 98 percent or higher
destruction efficiencies. However, at low concentrations, the control
efficiency of the system generally declines, and the EPA has a long
history of establishing an alternative organic concentration limit of
20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to address cases of low inlet
concentrations. Based on the low organic HAP concentrations observed in
measured emissions from well-captured PCS lines, the EPA established a
volatile organic HAP limit of 20 ppmv in the original NESHAP for
automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and automated shakeout
lines for new iron and steel foundries that use a sand mold system [40
CFR 63.7690(a)(10)] and did not provide a control efficiency
alternative. Note that this control system is for sources at new iron
and steel foundries where close capture hooding systems can be
integrated into the foundry design. If capture systems are not present
and need to be added to control emissions from existing mold and core
making or PCS lines, we expect the hooding system will be less enclosed
and require more ventilation air to capture the emissions.
Consequently, the inlet organic HAP concentrations are expected to be
less than 100 ppmv going into the control device, which is considered a
relatively low inlet concentration for these types of control devices.
    We reviewed the 2014 NEI data and developed aggregate organic HAP
emission estimates for each foundry from their mold and core making and
PCS lines. We estimated that total volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions were approximately 1.5 times the organic HAP emissions. We
then

developed four differently sized model control systems to span the
range of emissions observed in the NEI data. In this screening
analysis, we developed a single control system for the aggregate
emissions from mold and core making and PCS lines. In practice, these
emission sources may be a large distance apart, and it may not be
practical to employ a single control system for the aggregate
emissions. However, for a screening assessment, we conclude this
assumption represents the most cost-effective control scenario. If the
cost for the aggregate control system is determined to be not cost
effective under this scenario, we can conclude with confidence that
separate control systems for mold and core making and PCS lines would
also not be cost effective.
    The capital investment and total annualized costs for four
differently sized carbon adsorption and thermal oxidizer control
systems (both recuperative and regenerative) were developed using the
recently updated chapters of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual.22 23 24 These model plant control systems were
assigned to each major source iron and steel foundry based on their
reported 2014 NEI emissions. The emission reductions for each facility
were estimated assuming the carbon adsorption system would achieve 90-
percent control efficiency and that the thermal oxidizer would achieve
greater than 99-percent control efficiency. Based on the inlet
concentrations expected, particularly for a retrofit control system
where close capture hooding may not be feasible, the assumed emission
reductions serve as an upper-range estimate. It is likely that the
exhaust concentration of organic HAP would be less than 100 ppmv, so
that meeting the 20-ppmv emissions limit in the current NESHAP would
only require 80- percent, or less, emissions reduction. Nonetheless, we
assumed an upper-range emission reduction for this analysis because
this assumption would yield lower cost-effectiveness values. If the
control system is not cost effective using these upper-range emission
reduction estimates, we can conclude that the control systems for mold
and core making and PCS lines would not be cost effective when applied
to the actual facilities, which are expected to have low inlet organic
HAP concentrations and likely lower required control efficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Carbon Adsorbers. Section 3.1, Chapter 1 as revised for the
7th Edition of EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. October 2018.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/documents/final_carbonadsorberschapter_7thedition.pdf.
    \23\ Incinerators and Oxidizers. Section 3.2, Chapter 2 as
revised for the 7th Edition of EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual. November 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/oxidizersincinerators_chapter2_7theditionfinal.pdf.
    \24\ All costs provided in this section are in 2017 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis indicated that the cost effectiveness, measured in
dollars per ton, was significantly lower for the carbon adsorption
control system compared to both the recuperative and regenerative
thermal oxidizer control systems. The nationwide total capital
investment for carbon adsorption control systems was estimated to be
$27 million spread across 25 facilities which reported organic HAP
emissions from these sources.\25\ The nationwide total capital
investment for recuperative thermal oxidizer control systems was
similar, estimated to be $30 million for the 25 facilities. However,
the total annualized costs (including capital recovery) for the thermal
oxidizer system are about 3 times that of the carbon adsorption system
($17 million versus $5.8 million) due to higher variable operating and
maintenance costs. Specifically, the low organic concentrations in the
exhaust stream to be controlled require high consumption rates of
auxiliary fuel to maintain appropriate combustion temperatures for the
recuperative thermal oxidizer system. In contrast, a regenerative
thermal oxidizer system has better thermal efficiencies and can reduce
the total annualized costs to $12 million, but requires a total capital
investment of $70 million. Consequently, since emissions reductions
were assumed to be similar for any of these control systems, the
average cost effectiveness of carbon adsorption control systems
($12,700 per ton of organic HAP removed) was estimated to be
significantly lower than for either recuperative or regenerative
thermal oxidizer control systems ($26,000 to $37,000 per ton). For more
detail regarding the cost estimates, see Control Cost Estimates for
Organic HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The other 20 major source facilities in our dataset did not
report any emissions of organic HAP from these processes. Therefore,
we assumed those 20 facilities could comply with this control option
without additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to risk reductions, we estimate that application of
carbon adsorption requirements to the source category would reduce the
MIR from 50-in-1 million to 30-in-1 million, the number of people with
risks >= 10-in-1 million would be reduced from 6,900 to 400, and the
number of people with risks >= 1-in-1 million would be reduced from
144,000 to 42,000. Under this control scenario the primary remaining
risk drivers would be HAP metals since the organic HAP would be reduced
significantly by the carbon adsorption systems.
    Based on our analysis, we propose to conclude that these control
systems are not cost effective for this source category for the
following reasons. First, our estimated control costs, which represent
a best-case (i.e., most cost effective) scenario, are relatively high
while the reductions in risks that would be achieved by those controls
are moderate. In addition, a number of facilities are small businesses,
and we estimate that at least one small business would likely incur
costs exceeding 2 percent of their annual revenue, which would likely
result in negative impacts for this business. Nevertheless, we solicit
comments and data regarding our analyses described above and we solicit
comments regarding our proposed determination that these controls are
not cost effective.
c. Capture and Particulate Control Devices for Metal HAP Emissions
Reduction
    While the highest cancer risk was due to organic HAP, our risk
analysis also indicated that metal HAP emissions sources at four
facilities result in cancer risk to the individual most exposed greater
than 10-in-1 million and that 42,000 (of the 144,000 people for the
entire source category) may have cancer risks exceeding 1-in-1 million
due to metal HAP emissions. Therefore, we also evaluated these metal
HAP emission sources and assessed control options that would result in
reducing these cancer risks. The foundry emission sources that
contributed to these elevated cancer risks from metal HAP include scrap
charging, alloy addition, and molten metal transfers. The emissions
from these sources that are driving most of the estimated risks for HAP
metals are ``fugitive'' emissions which are typically emitted through
open roof vents and are currently subject to the building opacity limit
in the NESHAP. Reducing these emissions for these metal HAP sources
would require installing and operating capture systems (e.g., hooding,
duct work, fans, etc.) that direct the emissions to a particulate
control device (e.g., scrubber or baghouse). In some applications, an
existing particulate control device may have adequate capacity for
handling the additional gas stream load, but in general, we expect that
a new particulate control device would be

required due to the relatively large volumes of air that may need to be
collected. As most iron and steel foundries use baghouse control
systems for their PM control, we estimated the costs based on
installing new hooding, duct work, fans, and a relatively small
baghouse.
    Initially, we evaluated a requirement for all facilities to capture
and control these fugitive metal HAP emission sources. The average
metal HAP emissions for foundries from these fugitive emission sources
are estimated to be 0.18 tpy based on the NEI data. We estimated the
capital investment and total annualized costs for two differently sized
baghouse capture and control systems using the methods provided in the
6th Edition of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual \26\ and we
assumed approximately half of the foundries could control their sources
using the smaller baghouse capture and control system and the other
half of the foundries would need the larger capture and control system.
The nationwide total capital investment for all major source foundries
to install metal HAP capture and control systems was estimated to be
$23 million; the total annualized costs (including capital recovery)
for the metal HAP control systems were estimated to be $6 million.\27\
The nationwide metal HAP emissions reduction, assuming an aggregate
capture and control efficiency of 90 percent, was estimated to be 4.64
tpy for an average cost effectiveness of $1.3 million per ton of metal
HAP removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Baghouses and Filters. Section 6, Chapter 1 (chapter dated
December 1998). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. 6th Edition.
EPA/452/B-02-001. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
    \27\ Costs are reported in 2017 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the NEI data, we observed that many
foundries had very limited estimated metal HAP emissions from these
fugitive sources. The EPA has concluded this is mainly because some
foundries, particularly grey iron, do not use metal alloying. Many of
these foundries may also use cupola furnaces, which are continuous
melting furnaces. It is easier to control emissions during scrap
charging for these furnaces compared to other types of furnaces used at
foundries. Therefore, we also considered a regulatory option that would
require only foundries that perform alloying with metal HAP or that
otherwise produce casting with high metal HAP content to control the
metal HAP emission sources. Under this scenario, we estimated that the
average metal HAP emissions from these fugitive emission sources are
0.29 tpy. The nationwide total capital investment for a targeted rule
requiring metal HAP capture and control systems for foundries with
higher metal HAP alloys was estimated to be $13 million; the total
annualized costs for (including capital recovery) the metal HAP control
systems were estimated to be $3.3 million. The nationwide metal HAP
emissions reduction, assuming an aggregate capture and control
efficiency of 90 percent, was estimated to be 4.16 tpy for an average
cost effectiveness of $790,000 per ton of metal HAP removed. For more
detail regarding these cost estimates for the metal HAP control
systems, see Control Cost Estimates for Metal HAP Emissions from Iron
and Steel Foundries, which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
    With regard to risk reductions, we estimate that application of
either of these two improved capture and control of HAP metals
described above would reduce the MIR due to HAP metals from 30-in-1
million to about 3-in-1 million. However, the overall MIR for the
source category would still be 50-in-1 million due to organic HAP, as
described above. With regard to population exposures, we estimate that
the number of people with risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1
million would only be reduced slightly (e.g., 6,900 to 6,500), and
number of people with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
would be reduced from 144,000 to about 100,000 if we were to require
metal HAP emissions reductions.
    Based on consideration of the costs and cost effectiveness of both
the organic HAP and metal HAP emission control systems, consideration
of potential impacts to small businesses, the moderate risk reductions
that would be achieved, and the uncertainties in the emissions
estimates (as described in sections III.C.1 and 2 of this preamble), we
propose that the Iron and Steel Foundries major source NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect health and we are not proposing
any changes to the NESHAP based on the risk review. Nevertheless, we
solicit comments and data regarding our analyses described above.
Additionally, we solicit comments regarding whether it would be
appropriate to require the controls for organic HAP and/or metal HAP
described above, and, if so, why, and we also solicit comments
regarding our proposed determination that the current NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    As described in sections III.A and IV.A.4 of this preamble, we
conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries major source category for the following pollutants:
Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl
mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM. As explained in section IV.A
of this preamble, based on our analyses, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on the identification and evaluation of potential
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the major source and area source NESHAP were
promulgated in 2004 and 2008, respectively. In conducting the
technology review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding
the emissions from iron and steel foundries. We conducted separate but
similar reviews for the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category
and the two area source categories. The reviews included a search of
the RBLC database, reviews of air permits for iron and steel foundries,
and a review of relevant literature, including international best
practices. We reviewed these data sources for information on practices,
processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the
development of the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP. We also looked for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since development of the Iron and Steel
Foundries NESHAP.
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any developments in practices, processes or control
technologies to further reduce emissions from major source iron and
steel foundries under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. Furthermore, as
part of our technology review for major sources, we considered the same
controls and measures described above in section IV.B.2 of this
preamble (i.e., in the ample margin of safety analysis), including low-
emitting

binder formulations, carbon adsorption, and thermal oxidizers for
control of organic HAP and improved capture systems with new baghouses
for the metal HAP emissions. The costs, cost effectiveness, and other
considerations for these four control scenarios for major sources are
described in detail in section IV.B.2 of this preamble. As discussed in
section IV.B.2 of this preamble, we also considered revisions in the
cost algorithms for carbon adsorption systems and thermal oxidizers in
our assessment of control options to reduce organic HAP emissions. We
did not identify any improvements in performance of these control
systems for major sources, and our updated cost analysis continues to
demonstrate that these control systems are not cost effective for
existing sources in this major source category, largely due to the
dilute nature of the organic HAP emission streams. Further details
regarding our technology review for major source iron and steel
foundries are available in the memorandum titled: Major Source
Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this proposed action.
    With regard to area sources, we did not identify any developments
in practices, processes or control technologies to those evaluated
during the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ. Specifically,
we did not identify any improvements in performance of metal HAP
control systems used for area source iron and steel foundries or any
significant change in the control costs for these systems.
Consequently, we concluded that the analyses of control options
conducted in 2008 to support the development of metal HAP emission
limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, are still comprehensive and
valid today, and that the rationale and conclusions supporting the
final area source metal HAP emission limits are still appropriate. We
did not specifically evaluate or calculate the costs, cost
effectiveness, feasibility, or economic impacts of the four control
scenarios detailed in section IV.B.2 of this preamble for area sources.
However, since we conclude these controls and measures are either not
feasible and/or not cost effective for major sources, we conclude they
would also not be feasible and/or not cost effective for area sources
since area sources typically have lower emissions than the major
sources and a larger percent of area sources are likely to be small
businesses. Further details regarding our technology review for area
source iron and steel foundries are available in the memorandum titled:
Area Source Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP,
which is available in the docket for this proposed action.
    Based on the technology review described above, we determined that
there are no developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that necessitate revisions to the NESHAP for major source
Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) or the NESHAP
for area source Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZZ). Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to these NESHAP
based our technology review. We solicit comments and data regarding our
technology review analyses described above and our proposed
determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are warranted based on
our technology review.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the NESHAP to require the use of electronic
reporting of performance test reports and semiannual reports. We also
are proposing to correct section reference errors and make other minor
editorial revisions. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, section 112 emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply
continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in both Iron
and Steel Foundries NESHAP which appears at 40 CFR 63.7746 and Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart EEEEE) and in Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63
(Applicability of General Provisions to New and Existing Affected
Sources Classified as Large Foundries). Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We are also proposing several revisions to Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE as
is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
During periods where the process is in startup or shutdown, the
emission controls used should still provide HAP emissions control. For
example, emissions from a melting furnace can be directed to a baghouse
while the melting furnace is undergoing startup or shutdown. Similarly,
a triethylamine scrubber or carbon adsorption system can be operational
while the emission source being controlled is undergoing startup or
shutdown. The one potential exception to this is the afterburner used
to control organic HAP emissions from a cupola. The cupola afterburner
control system is primarily designed to burn the carbon monoxide
emitted as a result of the combustion of coke under oxygen limited
conditions during normal process operations. Most cupola afterburner
systems rely on the heat input from carbon monoxide in the cupola's
off-gas to maintain incineration temperatures. During startup of the
cupola, complete combustion of natural gas or other fuels are used to
preheat the cupola furnace. While the combustion of the startup fuels
do not generate adequate carbon monoxide to maintain incineration
temperatures in the afterburner section of the cupola, the complete
combustion of the startup fuels will not generate organic HAP
emissions. Therefore, we are proposing that foundry owners or operators
can

comply with the complete combustion limits (20-ppmv organic HAP limit)
during cupola startup even though the cupola afterburner is not
operating at the same temperature as it does during normal operations.
We understand that there will be a transition period when the cupola
startup operation shifts from a complete (oxygen rich) combustion mode
to a partial (oxygen limited) combustion mode when the cupola
afterburner temperature may not be sufficient to ensure full combustion
of the organic HAP that may be produced during this transition.
However, this transition period is expected to be short relative to the
3-hour averaging period of the organic HAP emissions limit. Therefore,
we are proposing that it is not necessary to provide alternative
standards for periods of startup or shutdown. We request comment on the
need for alternative standards during startup and shutdown. Commenters
should provide data demonstrating that an alternative standard is
necessary and provide suggestions regarding recommended alternative
emission limitations and monitoring parameters that ensure compliance
with the alternative emission limitations.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission
standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources
``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be
calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. Similarly,
although standards for area sources are not required to be set based on
``best performers,'' the EPA is not required to consider malfunctions
in determining what is ``generally available.''
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA considers whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether sufficient information is available to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction in the
foundry operations will result in a violation of the standard because
the air pollution control equipment used to control the emissions from
the process would still be operating. If the malfunction occurs in the
pollution control equipment, the iron and steel foundry operator should
discontinue process operations until such time that the air pollution
control systems are operable in order to comply with the requirements
to minimize emissions and operate according to good air pollution
practices. In general, process operations should be able to be shutdown
quickly enough to avoid a

violation of an emissions limitation. However, a malfunction in the
control equipment could result in a violation of the standard depending
on how quickly emissions decline upon process shut down. For example,
once molten metal is poured into molds, the molds can emit organic HAP
for several hours while they are cooling. Thus, even though process
operations may be shut down immediately (e.g., no more molten metal is
poured into molds once the organic HAP control system malfunctions),
the emissions may continue and a deviation may occur as a result. In
this case, foundry owners or operators must report the deviation, the
quantity of HAP emitted over the emissions limit, the cause of the
deviation, and the corrective action taken to limit the emissions
during the event.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) of
40 CFR part 63 to provide a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) and
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Additionally, we are
proposing to revise the current 40 CFR 63.10890(i) by re-designating it
to 40 CFR 63.10890(j) and removing the reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e).
Section 63.10890(i) currently contains a summary of the General
Provision sections that apply to affected sources classified as small
foundries (similar to the Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63 for
affected sources classified as large foundries). Section 63.6(e)
describes the general duty to minimize emissions and requirements for
an SSM plan. Some of the language in that section is no longer
necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. For 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, we are proposing to
revise general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7710(a) to eliminate
the reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) but maintain the general duty to
``. . . operate the foundry in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
levels required by this subpart.'' We are also proposing to delete the
phrase ``. . ., except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction'' from 40 CFR 63.7720(a) and to delete and reserve 40 CFR
63.7746(b), which states that deviations during periods of SSM are not
violations if the source was operating in accordance to 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1). For 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, we are proposing to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.10890(i) for affected sources
classified as small foundries and at 40 CFR 63.10896(c) for affected
sources classified as large foundries that reflects the general duty to
minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered
by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With
the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing in 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ, does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    Similarly, 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being revised or added in 40 CFR part
63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ.
b. SSM Plan
    In our proposed revisions of Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63
and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63 to provide a separate entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no,'' we are
also proposing that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) does not apply. Generally, the
paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer
necessary. We are also proposing to delete and reserve 40 CFR
63.7720(c) that details the requirement to prepare the SSM plan and to
revise the definition of ``off blast'' to remove reference to the SSM
plan.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) to
provide a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As
discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions
contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some
CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra
Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at
all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) to provide separate entries for 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2)-(9). We are proposing to change the
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) to include a ``no'' in column 3. The
current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity
standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held
that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112

standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. In a
related amendment, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of
``deviation'' in both 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ, to
remove subsection (3) that describes deviations during periods of SSM.
Since the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at
all times, the distinction described in subsection (3) is no longer
relevant.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) to
add a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and change the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.7732(a)
and 40 CFR 63.10898(c) to add a performance testing requirement to test
under representative conditions. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.7732(a) and 40 CFR 63.10898(c) to remove the reference to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The proposed
performance testing provisions do not allow performance testing during
startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests
conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to
add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance
test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does not
specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) by
adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and
including a ``no'' in column 3. The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) by
adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add provisions to subpart EEEEE at 40 CFR 63.7752(b)(2)
and to subpart ZZZZZ at 40 CFR 63.10899(b)(14) that is identical to 40
CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan as required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2)(vi).''
    The monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 63.10897(g) require owners or
operators to restore normal operations as quickly as possible when
monitoring demonstrates a deviation of an emission limit (including an
operating limit). The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.10897(g) to remove reference to minimizing periods of SSM. We
consider this to be redundant to the requirement to take ``any
necessary corrective action to restore normal operations and prevent
the likely recurrence of the exceedance'' and is irrelevant since the
EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all
times, including periods of SSM.
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) by
adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v)
and including a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes
the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These
recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is
proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal
operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of
special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. Consequently, we are
also proposing additional revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE
and ZZZZZ, to remove SSM-related records. First, we are proposing to
replace the SSM recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(2),
which refers to records specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3), with
requirements to keep records of maintenance performed on air pollution
control and monitoring equipment as required by 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iii). Second, we are proposing to revise the recordkeeping
requirement at 40 CFR 63.7752(b)(4) to remove the records needed to
indicate whether deviation of a continuous emission monitoring system
occurred during periods of SSM. Third, we are proposing to revise the
recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.10899(b) to revise the general
reference to records required by 40 CFR 63.10 to specify that only
records required by 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi) through (xiv), and
(b)(3) are necessary.
    Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements
during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to
40 CFR 63.7752(d) and to 40 CFR 63.10899(b)(15). The regulatory text we
are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is
replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add requirements to 40 CFR
63.7752(d) and to 40 CFR 63.10899(b)(15) that sources keep records that
include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to
minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet
the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information

to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to
determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
    Section 63.10(b)(2)(iv), when applicable, requires sources to
record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent
with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because
SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously
applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to
minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by
the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(d) and in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(15).
    Section 63.10(b)(2)(v), when applicable, requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were
consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table for major
source foundries (Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63) by moving the
reference to 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) to include it with an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(c)(7) and (8) that includes a ``no'' in column 3. The EPA is
proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable,
the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's
SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of
the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing
to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be
required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any
useful purpose for affected units. The General Provisions table for
area source foundries (Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) already
indicates that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) does not apply, so the EPA is not
proposing to revise the designation in column 3 for this entry.
However, based on the additional records specified in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(15), the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.10(c)(7)
and (8) are redundant and no longer necessary. Therefore, we are
proposing to include a single entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c) in Table 3 to
Subpart ZZZZZ that includes a ``no'' in column 3.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no'' and to delete and reserve 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(4) and (c), which
cross-references the 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) reporting requirements. Section
63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions
reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(7) and (8) and 40 CFR 63.10899(c).
The replacement language differs from the General Provisions
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone
report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to
meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information
concerning such events in the semiannual report already required under
this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the date,
time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause,
if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate
of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. For
example, both 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ require foundry
owners or operators to prepare and operate according to a site-specific
operating and maintenance plan for each control device and continuous
monitoring system associated with that control device and to maintain
records documenting conformance with these requirements and the added
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(7) and (8), as well as 40
CFR 63.10899(c) to include reporting of specific deviations.
    The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii), which describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required.
    We are also proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) in
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63 by changing the ``yes'' in column 3
to ``no.'' Given the additions to the reporting requirements as
described above, we are also proposing to include all relevant
deviation reporting requirements directly in 40 CFR 63.10899(c), rather
than relying on cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3). These edits are
not expected to alter the reporting burden; however, the direct
inclusion of the 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) reporting requirements into 40 CFR
63.10899(c) will provide clarity of the reporting requirements to area
source foundry owners and operators. We note that 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE, directly includes these reporting elements and indicates
that 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) does not apply, so no revision to this entry is
required for the major source foundry NESHAP.
2. Electronic Reporting
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of iron and steel foundries submit electronic copies of
required initial notifications, performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-2019-0373. The proposed
rule requires that performance test results collected using test
methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
as

listed on the ERT website \28\ at the time of the test be submitted in
the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other
performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF)
using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for
these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\29\ As
part of these revisions, we are also proposing that the semiannual
mercury switch removal report, currently described in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(2)(ii), must be included as part of the semiannual
compliance report. Currently, the semiannual mercury switch removal
report may be submitted as a standalone report or as part of the
semiannual compliance report. Therefore, to aide in the electronic
reporting of mercury switch removal when a site-specific plan for
mercury is used, we are proposing to move the reporting in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(2)(ii) to the semiannual compliance report requirements
included under 40 CFR 63.10899(c). The EPA specifically requests
comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Iron_Steel_Foundry_Semiannual_Template_EEEEE_Draft and
Iron_Steel_Foundry_Area_Sources_Semiannual_Template_ZZZZZ_Draft
available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7751(h) and
40 CFR 63.10899(f). The situation where an extension may be warranted
due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be
or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected
facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule
is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7751(i) and 40 CFR 63.10899(g). Examples of
such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment
failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \30\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \31\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\32\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-2019-0373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \31\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \32\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing to amend the implementation and
enforcement delegations addressed in 40 CFR 63.7761(c) and 40 CFR
63.10905(c) to stipulate that the authority to approve any alternative
to any electronic reporting cannot be delegated.
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The EPA is proposing one additional editorial correction for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE, as follows.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.7732(e)(1) to correct the reference to
``paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v)'' to be ``paragraphs (e)(1)(i)
through (v).''
    The EPA is also proposing additional changes that address technical
and editorial corrections for 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ as follows.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10885(a)(1) to add the sentence: ``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.'' This provision was added to the major source
NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7700(b) in the 2008 amendments (73 FR 7218) shortly
after the area source NESHAP was promulgated. The requirements in 40
CFR 63.10885(a)(1) were developed based on the provisions in 40 CFR
63.7700(b) and this provision for major source iron and steel foundries
should also apply to area source iron and steel foundries.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10890(c) to correct the reference to
``Sec.  63.9(h)(1)(i)'' to be ``Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(i).''
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10890(f) to correct the reference to
``Sec.  63.10(e)'' to be ``Sec.  63.13.''
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10897(d)(3) and (g) to replace all
instances of ``correction action'' with ``corrective action'' to
correct typographical errors.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10899(c) to correct the reference to
``Sec.  63.10(e)'' to be ``Sec.  63.13.''
     Revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.9 in Table 3 to Subpart
ZZZZZ to add an explanation in column 4 to read ``Except for opacity
performance tests.'' This explanation was included in the major source
NESHAP in Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE but was inadvertently not included
in the area source NESHAP. This proposed amendment relieves area source
foundries of providing notifications of semiannual opacity

observations of fugitive emissions from buildings or structures housing
foundry operations.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    We are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ. As discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that
initial notifications, performance test results, performance evaluation
reports, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted
electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for
SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the
standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop
and implement an SSM plan.
    Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different
time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully complete these changes. Therefore, we are proposing 6
months to transition the periodic reports to electronic reporting
through CEDRI. For performance tests, most stack testing contractors
already have electronic reporting capabilities and have used EPA's
electronic reporting system. Therefore, we are proposing that
performance test reports and performance evaluation reports be
submitted electronically for tests conducted after the effective date
of the final rule. These reports are due within 60 days of the
completion of the performance test so facilities will have up to 60
days (and generally longer since the performance test and performance
evaluations are required annually or once every 5 years). We are
proposing that the elimination of SSM exemptions will become effective
on the effective date of the rule. We understand that the regulated
facility generally requires some time period to read and understand the
amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that
they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as
defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust
parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions;
and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements.
However, most foundry processes are batch processes, so the control
systems are designed to accommodate differing operations, including
startup and shutdown. We do not expect that the proposed SSM revisions
will require any new control systems and very few, if any, operational
changes. Additionally, much of the revisions are eliminating additional
records and reports related to SSM. These changes can be implemented
quickly by the foundry owner or operator at no cost (and likely some
cost savings) and if these records are still collected after the final
rule is promulgated, the facility will still be in compliance with the
proposed requirements. Finally, this proposal serves to provide
notification to the iron and steel foundry industry of the EPA's intent
to require compliance with the applicable standards at all times,
including periods of SSM, and the evaluations and adjustments needed to
comply with the standards at all times can be conducted based on this
proposal. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require compliance with
the SSM revisions for 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ, upon
the effective date of the final rules. We solicit comment on this
proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are approximately 45 major source iron and steel foundries
and approximately 390 area source iron and steel foundries affected by
this proposal. In this proposal, we have included editorial
corrections, electronic reporting requirements, and changes in policies
regarding SSM. Because we are proposing no new requirements or controls
in this RTR, no iron and steel foundries are adversely impacted by
these proposed revisions. In fact, the impacts to iron and steel
foundries from this proposal are expected to be minimal.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limitations,
we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result
of the proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed
requirements, including the removal of the SSM exemption and addition
of periodic emissions testing, may reduce some unquantified emissions
by ensuring proper operation of control devices during SSM periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We expect that the proposed amendments will have minimal cost
impacts for iron and steel foundries. The proposed editorial
corrections will have no cost impacts. The proposed revisions to use
electronic reporting effectively replace existing requirements to mail
in copies of the required reports and notifications. We expect that the
electronic system will save some time and expense compared to printing
and mailing the required reports and notifications; however, it will
take some time for foundry owners and operators to review the new
electronic notification and reporting form, review their recordkeeping
processes, and potentially revise their processes to more efficiently
complete their semiannual reports. There may also be initial costs
associated with electronic reporting of performance tests. We are also
proposing revisions to SSM provisions. Again, these revisions are
expected to have minimal impact on affected iron and steel foundries.
For major source iron and steel foundries, we are eliminating the need
to develop a SSM plan or submit an immediate SSM report when the SSM
plan is not followed and there is an exceedance of an applicable
emission limitation. While this may reduce some burden, iron and steel
foundry owners and operators will still need to assess their operations
and make plans to achieve the emission limitations at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    We estimate the initial one-time costs associated with the proposed
electronic reporting and SSM revisions would be $96,000 for the 45
major source iron and steel foundries subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE, or approximately $2,130 per major source foundry. For
area source foundries subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, we
estimate the total initial one-time costs would be $375,000 for the 390
area sources. The average one-time cost for an area source foundry
classified as a small area source foundry is estimated to be $732 per

foundry; the average one-time cost for an area source foundry
classified as a large area source foundry is estimated to be $1,920 per
foundry. Once electronic reporting is adopted, we expect costs savings
to be realized for the ongoing report submissions. We estimate that a
reduction in the time to prepare and submit semiannual reports of 1 to
2 hours per report would off-set the initial one-time costs within the
first 3 years after implementation of the electronic reporting.
Consequently, we consider the cost impacts associated with the proposed
electronic reporting provisions to be minimal. Also, we expect there
would only be a small number of immediate SSM reports each year, so
that the cost savings associated with eliminating the immediate SSM
reports each year would be under $500 nationwide. Consequently, we
estimate the total one-time cost impacts of the proposed electronic
reporting and SSM revisions will be approximately $470,000 across all
foundries (area and major sources) and that these costs will largely be
offset within the first 3 years of implementation.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a proposed rule. Because the costs associated
with the proposed revisions are minimal, no significant economic
impacts from the proposed amendments are anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate any significant reductions in
HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that
the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to
the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards
such that they apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed
amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications,
performance test results, and semiannual reports will increase the
usefulness of the data, are in keeping with current trends of data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the
regulated community. See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more
information.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as described for each
source category covered by this proposal in sections C.1 and C.2 below.
1. Iron and Steel Foundries Major Sources
    The information collection request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2096.07. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here.
    We are proposing amendments that require electronic reporting,
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for iron and steel foundries major
source facilities. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries major source facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 45 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.

    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 15,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $1,400,000 (per year), which includes $206,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
2. Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2267.05. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing amendments that require electronic reporting,
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for iron and steel foundries area
source facilities. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries area source facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZZ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 390 (total), 75 of these are
classified as large iron and steel foundries and 315 are classified as
small iron and steel foundries.
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 14,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $1,150,000 (per year); there are no annualized capital
or operation and maintenance costs.
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than November 8, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Based on the
Small Business Administration size category for this source category,
no small entities are subject to this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian Tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the
following risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for
this action.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
    EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test'' was previously
approved for incorporation by reference into Sec.  63.10885 and no
changes are proposed.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.3
of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the
Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category, which is located in the
public docket for this action.
    We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, by performing a
demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, source category
across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near facilities identified as having the highest
risks. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are
included in the technical report, Risk and

Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near the Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category, available in
the docket for this action.
    The results of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the Iron and Steel
Foundries major source category expose approximately 144,000 people to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and none exposed to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk
population in each demographic group (except for ``African American,''
``Below Poverty Level,'' and ``Over 25 and without High School
Diploma'') are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide
percentages. The African American population exposed to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million due to iron and steel foundries major source
emissions is 4 percent above the national average. Likewise,
populations living ``Below Poverty Level'' and ``Over 25 and without
High School Diploma'' are exposed to cancer risk above 1-in-1 million,
6 and 4 percent above the national average, respectively.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: September 13, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart EEEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries

0
2. Section 63.7710 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7710   What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must always operate and maintain your iron and steel
foundry, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a
manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.7720 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7720   What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart at all times.
* * * * *
    (c) [Reserved]
0
4. Section 63.7732 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and revising
paragraph (e)(1) introductory text 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 paragraphs (b) through
(i) of this section. Each performance test must be conducted under
conditions representative of normal operations. Normal operating
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, that are specified
in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.7746 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7746   What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

* * * * *
    (b) [Reserved]
0
6. Section 63.7751 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (8);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (c); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (e) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7751   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or CEMS) was inoperable or out-of-control as
specified by Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods
during which the CPMS was inoperable or out-of-control during the
reporting period.
    (7) For each affected source or equipment for which there was a
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit,
work practice standard, or operation and maintenance requirement) that
occurs at an iron and steel foundry during the reporting period, the
compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section. This requirement includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) A list of the affected source or equipment and the total
operating time of each emissions source during the reporting period.
    (ii) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit, work practice standard, or operation and maintenance
requirement) that occurs at an iron and steel foundry during the
reporting period, report:
    (A) The date, start time, duration (in hours), and cause of each
deviation (characterized as either startup, shutdown, control equipment
problem, process problem, other known cause, or unknown cause, as
applicable) and the corrective action taken; and
    (B) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any emission limit and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
    (iii) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviations
that occurred during the reporting period by cause (characterized as
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and unknown causes) and the cumulative duration of
deviations during the reporting period across all causes both in hours
and as a percent of

the total source operating time during the reporting period.
    (8) For each continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or
CEMS) used to comply with the emissions limitation or work practice
standard in this subpart that was inoperable or out-of-control during
any portion of the reporting period, you must include the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (vi) of this section. This
requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system,
including manufacturer and model number.
    (ii) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
    (iii) A brief description and the total operating time of the
affected source or equipment that is monitored by the continuous
monitoring system during the reporting period.
    (iv) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (v) For each period for which the continuous monitoring system was
inoperable or out-of-control during the reporting period, report:
    (A) The date, start time, and duration (in hours) of the deviation;
    (B) The type of deviation (inoperable or out-of-control); and
    (C) The cause of deviation (characterized as monitoring system
malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes, and unknown causes,
as applicable) and the corrective action taken.
    (vi) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviations
that occurred during the reporting period by cause (characterized as
monitoring system malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions,
quality assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and
unknown causes) and the cumulative duration of deviations during the
reporting period across all causes both in hours and as a percent of
the total source operating time during the reporting period.
    (c) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (e) Compliance report submission requirements. Prior to [DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must submit semiannual compliance reports to the
Administrator as specified in Sec.  63.13. Beginning on [DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
you must submit all subsequent semiannual compliance reports to the EPA
via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI),
which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business
information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the
appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in
this paragraph.
    (f) Performance test results submission requirements. Within 60
days after the date of completing each performance test required by
this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of
this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed
through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) Performance evaluation results submission requirements. Within
60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system
(CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must
submit the results of the performance evaluation following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the

information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of
this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
7. Section 63.7752 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (4); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7752   What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Records of required maintenance performed on the air pollution
control and monitoring equipment as required by Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Records of the site-specific performance evaluation test plan
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2) for the life of the affected source or
until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of
this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
as required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2)(vi).
* * * * *
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped.
* * * * *
    (d) You must keep the following records for each failure to meet an
emissions limitation (including operating limit), work practice
standard, or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart.
    (1) Date, start time and duration of each failure.
    (2) List of the affected sources or equipment for each failure, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
    (3) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.7710(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
 8. Section 63.7761 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7761   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or
tribal

agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
 9. Section 63.7765 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Deviation'' and ``Off blast'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7765   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    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 including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including operating limits), work practice standard, or operation and
maintenance requirement; or
    (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.
    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. 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.
* * * * *
0
10. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is revised to read as follows:

            Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
    [As stated in Sec.   63.7760, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                   EEEEE?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................
63.3.................................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................
63.4.................................  Prohibited activities..  Yes....................
63.5.................................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        reconstruction.
63.6(a) through (d)..................  Compliance               Yes....................
                                        applicability and
                                        dates.
63.6(e)..............................  Operating and            No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        maintenance                                       operating and
                                        requirements.                                     maintenance
                                                                                requirements.
63.6(f)(1)...........................  Applicability of non-    No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        opacity emission                                  applicability of non-
                                        standards.                                        opacity emission
                                                                                standards.
63.6(f)(2) through (3)...............  Methods and finding of   Yes....................
                                        compliance with non-
                                        opacity emission
                                        standards.
63.6(g)..............................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        nonopacity emission
                                        standard.
63.6(h)(1)...........................  Applicability of         No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        opacity and visible                               applicability of
                                        emissions standards.                              opacity and visible
                                                                                emission standards.
63.6(h)(2) through (9)...............  Methods and other        Yes....................
                                        requirements for
                                        opacity and visible
                                        emissions standards.
63.6(i) through (j)..................  Compliance extension     Yes....................
                                        and Presidential
                                        compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(1) through (2)...............  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        performance test dates.                           applicability and
                                                                                performance test
                                                                                dates.
63.7(a)(3) through (4)...............  Administrators rights    Yes....................
                                        to require a
                                        performance test and
                                        force majeure
                                        provisions.
63.7(b) through (d)..................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test,
                                        quality assurance
                                        program, and testing
                                        facilities.
63.7(e)(1)...........................  Performance test         No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        conditions.                                       performance test
                                                                                conditions.
63.7(e)(2) through (4), (f) through    Other performance        Yes....................