[Federal Register: February 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 26)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7210-7223]
[DOCID:fr07fe08-10]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034; FRL-8522-4]
RIN 2060-AM85

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: These final amendments are effective on February 7, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these
amendments is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
February 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information

III. Summary of the Final Amendments Made Since Proposal
    A. Emissions Limitations
    B. Work Practice Standards
    C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    D. Compliance with Alternative Emissions Limits
    E. Monitoring Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    G. Definitions
    H. Applicability
    I. Editorial Corrections
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Language of Proposed Alternative Emissions Limits
    B. Mercury Emissions Limit
    C. Information on Mercury Switch Removal from Scrap Suppliers
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these
final amendments include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Industry......................          331511  Iron foundries, Iron
                                                  and steel plants.
                                                  Automotive and large
                                                  equipment
                                                  manufacturers.
                                         331512  Steel investment
                                                  foundries.
                                         331513  Steel foundries (except
                                                  investment).
 Federal government............  ..............  Not affected.
 State/local/tribal government.  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7682
of subpart EEEEE (NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your
EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A
(General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

     Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial
review of these final amendments is available only by filing a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by April 7, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to these final amendments that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final amendments may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.

II. Background Information

     The NESHAP for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEEE) establishes emissions limitations and work practice requirements
for the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from foundry
operations. The NESHAP implements section 112(d) of the CAA by
requiring all iron and steel foundries that are major sources of HAP to
meet standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The compliance date for most of the subpart EEEEE
requirements was April 23, 2007.
    After publication of the NESHAP (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the
American Foundry Society, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and
the Steel Founders' Society of America filed petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. The American Foundry Society and the
Steel Founders' Society of America also filed petitions for review of
the final rule (Steel Founders' Society of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-
1190, DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-1191,
DC Cir.). The concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the work
practice standards for scrap management have been resolved by rule
amendments issued on May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel Founders'
Society of America petitioned the court for voluntary dismissal of
their petition for review on March 23, 2006, and the court granted that
petition on May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge to the NESHAP
remaining before the court is the American Foundry Society petition for
review, No. 04-1191.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a
notice of a proposed settlement agreement between EPA and the
petitioner (72 FR 1986, January 17, 2007) and provided a 30-day comment
period which ended on February 16, 2007. The settlement agreement
became final on March 9, 2007. On April 17, 2007 (72 FR 19150), we
proposed rule amendments which addressed the need for alternative
emissions limits for cupolas at existing foundries and clarification of
other rule requirements as set forth in Attachment A to the settlement
agreement. The proposed amendments also included corrections to a few
minor editorial errors.
    These final amendments are materially the same as the proposed
amendments. EPA expects these final amendments to resolve the remaining
issues raised by the petitioner.

III. Summary of Final Amendments and Changes Made Since Proposal

     These final amendments include two changes since proposal. The
first change is in the wording used to describe the emission limit for
the new compliance option for cupola melting furnaces; instead of
abbreviating the limit as lb/

ton of particulate matter (PM) (or total metal HAP), we expressly state
the limit as pound of PM (or total metal HAP) per ton of metal charged.
We intend this as a clarification, not as a substantive change from
what we proposed. We are also correcting a publication error in the
definition of ``deviation'' as published at 72 FR 19164. All other
final amendments are exactly as proposed.

A. Emissions Limitations

1. New Compliance Options for Cupola Metal Melting Furnaces
     These final amendments add a new compliance option to Sec.
73.7690(a)(2) of the NESHAP. The new alternative emissions limits for
cupola metal melting furnaces at existing iron and steel foundries
allows the use of control technologies that are designed on a mass
removal basis rather than an outlet concentration basis. The levels of
the new alternative emissions limits are the same as proposed: 0.10
pound of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pound of total HAP per
ton of metal charged. In response to public comment, we have revised
the manner in which the emissions limits are stated in the rule for
clarity. We have also revised associated compliance provisions in
Sec. Sec.  63.7732(b)(6) and (c)(6), 63.7734(a)(2)(iii) and (iv), and
63.7743(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to refer to the new alternative limits in
terms of pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged or pounds of
total metal HAP per ton of metal charged instead of lb/ton of PM or lb/
ton of total metal HAP, respectively.
2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit
     These final amendments specify that the opacity limitations apply
only to buildings that house iron and steel foundry emissions sources.
If nonfoundry operations are housed in the same building as the foundry
operations, the foundry must comply with the opacity limits for that
building.
3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit
     These final amendments replace the reference to test conditions
(``as determined when scrubbing with fresh acid solution'') with the
phrase ``according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(g)'' since Sec.  63.7732(g) contains the requirement to conduct
the test when scrubbing with fresh acid solution.

B. Work Practice Standards

1. Capture and Collection Systems
     These final amendments delete the word ``standard'' from 40 CFR
63.7690(b)(1) to clarify that capture and collection systems are
required for emissions sources subject to an emissions limit but not
for emissions sources subject to work practice standards.
2. Scrap Management
     These final amendments specify that ``chlorinated'' plastics are
to be removed from the scrap material (instead of all plastic). These
final amendments also revise the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2)
for the owner or operator to obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had the
switches removed. These final amendments include an alternative
procedure that allows the plant to document their attempts to obtain a
copy of the procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing their area.
We note, however, that under 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2) the materials
acquisition program must specify that the scrap supplier remove
accessible mercury switches from the trunks and hoods of any automotive
bodies contained in the scrap in addition to accessible lead components
such as batteries and wheel weights. It is incumbent on the foundry
owner or operator to communicate these specifications to their scrap
suppliers.
3. Scrap Preheaters
     The existing rule requires the owner or operator to install,
operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater according to 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(1) or charge only certain materials according to 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(2). These final amendments revise the language of Sec.
63.7700(e)(1) to clarify that foundries are not required to install
gas-fired preheaters when not necessary for foundry operations. It was
not our intent to mandate installation of preheaters, but rather to
establish requirements for those existing facilities that use scrap
preheaters in lieu of selecting the option in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2).
Therefore, these final amendments clarify Sec.  63.7700(e)(1) by
deleting the word ``install''. Instead, these final amendments require
the owner or operator to operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater
where the flame directly contacts the scrap charged.

C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements

     These final amendments clarify that the requirement in 40 CFR
63.7700(e)(2) applies to each capture and collection system and control
device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP,
triethylamine (TEA), or volatile organic hazardous pollutants (VOHAP)
emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a).

D. Compliance With Alternative Emissions Limits

    The existing NESHAP establishes PM emissions limits and alternative
emissions limits expressed in total metal HAP for cupolas and other
foundry processes. These final amendments clarify our original intent
to allow foundries to demonstrate compliance with any of the applicable
alternative emissions limitations that are provided for a specific
emissions source. When multiple alternative emissions limitations are
provided for a specific emissions source, iron and steel foundries can
demonstrate initial compliance with any of the alternative limits; they
are not required to comply with all of the alternative emissions limits
at any one time. These final amendments also clarify a facility's
ability to change their selected compliance alternative and the
procedures needed to effect that change. However, regarding continuous
compliance, the facility is expected to continuously comply with the
alternative emissions limit that was selected as their compliance
option as demonstrated in their most recent performance test. The
facility may choose to alter their selected alternative but must
continue to comply with the previously selected alternative until they
successfully demonstrate compliance with the new alternative emissions
limitation.
    We are also finalizing requirements for determining initial
compliance for cupola melting furnaces at existing iron and steel
foundries that are subject to the new mass rate emissions limit. The
final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) include new equations for
determining PM or total metal HAP emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton
of metal charged format. Other amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c)
clarify test methods source sampling requirements.
1. Single Performance Test for Control Devices Serving Multiple Units
    Section 63.7734 of the NESHAP requires iron and steel foundries to
demonstrate initial compliance with PM emissions limits by conducting a
performance test for each process unit according to the procedures in
40 CFR 63.7732. One petitioner pointed out that a common emissions
control system may serve two similar or identical cupolas or serve
multiple furnaces or process units. According to the petitioner, a
requirement for separate tests of the control device while the

emissions sources are operating is redundant and imposes unnecessary
costs because the control device should perform the same on each
identical furnace. These final amendments resolve the petitioner's
concern by adding a new provision to the performance test requirements.
As proposed, the final amendment requires foundries to submit a site-
specific test plan for the situation described by the petitioner or
other situations not expressly considered in 40 CFR 63.7734. The site-
specific test plan, which is subject to approval by the Administrator,
will explain the procedures that would be followed during the test,
such as operation of the unit or units at the maximum operating
condition of the control system. The Administrator or delegated
authority will determine on a case-by-case basis if one representative
furnace/control device configuration may be tested.
2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc Furnaces, Electric Induction
Furnaces, and Scrap Preheaters
    As proposed, we are clarifying the sampling instructions in 40 CFR
63.7732(c)(4) and (5) to state that the initial compliance
demonstrations for electric arc metal melting furnaces, electric
induction metal melting furnaces, and scrap preheaters must be
conducted under normal production conditions. These final amendments
require sampling during normal operating conditions, which may include
charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging, and tapping (for a
furnace) or charging, heating, and discharging (for a scrap preheater).
3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total Metal HAP
    As proposed, these final amendments remove the requirement in 40
CFR 63.7732(c)(2) for a minimum sample volume for test runs by EPA
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) because the method already
includes such a requirement.
4. Opacity Test
    Section 63.7732(d) of the existing NESHAP establishes the
requirements for opacity tests. These final amendments instruct the
certified observer how to take opacity readings by Method 9 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A) for a building that has many openings. As
proposed, these final amendments allow the observer to take readings
from a limited number of openings or vents that appear to have the
highest opacities instead of making observations for each opening or
vent from the building or structure. Alternatively, a single
observation for the entire building is allowed if the fugitive release
points afford such an observation. These final amendments also revise
the language of 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(2) to clarify that opacity tests are
to be conducted during PM performance tests, but that PM performance
tests are not required to occur during the semiannual opacity tests.
5. Alternative Test Method
    Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the existing NESHAP requires the use of
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the TEA
concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core-making line.
As proposed, these final amendments allow NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines,
Aliphatic'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) as an
alternative to EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) provided the
performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are
satisfied. Method 2010 is included in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods (4th edition, NIOSH Publication 94-113, August 1994). The
manual is available from the Government Printing Office and the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), NTIS publication No.
PB95154191. The NIOSH method may also be found on the NIOSH Web site at
the following address: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/method-4000.html.

6. Procedures for Establishing Operating Limits
    As proposed, these final amendments clarify the procedures for
establishing control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7733(b)
through (d) by deleting the reference to the 3-hour average from the
test procedures. These final amendments specify that the owner or
operator is to compute and record the average operating parameter value
for each valid sampling run in which the applicable limit is met.
7. Repeat Performance Tests
    As proposed, these final amendments revise the requirements for
repeat performance in 40 CFR 63.7731(a) to clarify that demonstrating
compliance by one method does not preclude a plant from demonstrating
compliance using an alternative method at a later date. A plant may
elect to demonstrate compliance with an alternative emissions limit
during the repeat performance tests conducted at least every 5 years.
Furthermore, a plant may elect to conduct a performance test earlier
than 5 years in order to change an operating limit or to demonstrate
compliance with a different alternative emissions limit. A test
conducted for the purpose of changing operating limits is subject to
notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.7750(d).

E. Monitoring Requirements

1. Baghouse Monitoring Requirements
    Section 63.7740(b) of the existing NESHAP requires a bag leak
detection system for each negative pressure baghouse and for each
positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack where the baghouse is
applied to meet any PM or total metal HAP emissions limitation in
subpart EEEEE. This provision also requires inspection of each baghouse
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7740(b)(1) through (8). As
proposed, these final amendments include monitoring requirements for
the visual inspection of positive pressure baghouses that are not
equipped with a stack. As proposed, these final amendments to 40 CFR
63.7740(b) clarify the text to ensure that the requirements in this
paragraph for installing and using a bag leak detection system apply
only to negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses
equipped with a stack. The inspection requirements are separated and
placed in a new paragraph (c) and clarified to state that the
inspection requirements apply to each baghouse regardless of type.
These final amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740 also renumber the paragraphs
which follow new paragraph (c). Similar clarifications are made to the
requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance in 40 CFR
63.7743(c).
2. Demonstration of Initial Compliance With Bag Leak Detection System
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    Section 63.7736(c) of the existing NESHAP instructs the owner or
operator how to demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements
for bag leak detection systems. Under 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1), the owner
or operator must submit the bag leak detection system monitoring plan
to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.7710(b). As proposed, these final amendments to 40 CFR
63.7736(c)(1) revise this provision to clarify that submission of the
monitoring plan independent of the operation and maintenance plan is
not necessary. Our intent is to include the bag leak detection system
information in the operation and maintenance plan to streamline the
approval process and avoid the administrative costs associated with a
separate submission.

In addition, having one integrated plan will provide a centralized
reference tool for control device operation and maintenance
requirements.
3. Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Requirements for Monitors
    As proposed, these final amendments revise the requirements for
operation and maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems to
more clearly describe the inspection requirements. Under the operation
and maintenance requirements for flow measurement devices in 40 CFR
63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator must perform monthly
inspections of all flow sensor components for integrity, all electrical
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
These final amendments change this provision to require a monthly
visual inspection of all components, including all electrical and
mechanical connections for proper functioning. The same changes are
made to the monthly inspection requirements for other types of
monitoring devices in Sec. Sec.  63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi),
(c)(2)(iv), (d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv).
    As proposed, these final amendments also revise the requirement for
pressure measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ``daily check of the pressure tap for
pluggage.'' We are requiring a daily check for pluggage when using a
regular pressure tap and a monthly check when using a non-clogging
pressure tap. These final amendments also clarify the requirements for
pressure measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the use of a manometer or equivalent device
for calibrations.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

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

G. Definitions

    We are amending the definition of the term ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.7765 to clarify that the enforcement authority determines if a
deviation is a violation. The proposed amendment appeared at 72 FR
19164: however, due to a publication error, the new language was added
after the first sentence of the original definition, rather than at the
end. In these final amendments, we are correcting the placement of the
new language.
    As proposed, we are adding definitions of the terms ``off blast''
and ``on blast'' to 40 CFR 63.7765. The term ``off blast'' is defined
as those periods of cupola operation when the cupola is not actively
being used to produce molten metal. Off-blast conditions include cupola
startup procedures as defined in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. Off-blast conditions also include idling conditions when the
blast air is turned off or down to the point that the cupola does not
produce additional molten metal. The term ``on blast'' means those
periods of cupola operation when combustion (blast) air is introduced
to the cupola furnace and the furnace is capable of producing molten
metal. On blast conditions are characterized by both blast air
introduction and molten metal production.
    As proposed, these final amendments revise the definition of
``total metal HAP'' to specify the analytes to be included and how non-
detect values are to be used in calculating the total metal HAP
quantity. The definition of ``total metal HAP'' is the sum of the
concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by
EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only the measured
concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations
exceeding one-half of the quantification limit of the analytical method
are used in the sum. If any of the analytes are not detected or are
detected at concentrations less than one-half the quantification limit
of the analytical method, the concentration of those analytes is
assumed to be zero for the purposes of calculating the total metal HAP
for this subpart.
    As proposed, we are also clarifying the definition of ``scrap
preheater'' to differentiate scrap dryers that are used solely to
remove moisture from the scrap metal from scrap preheaters. The revised
definition of ``scrap preheater'' states that scrap dryers, which are
used solely to remove water from metal scrap that does not contain any
volatile impurities or other tramp materials, are not considered to be
scrap preheaters for purposes of this subpart.

H. Applicability

    As proposed, we are revising the applicability provisions in 40 CFR
63.7681 to reference the definition of ``major source'' in 40 CFR 63.2.
This amendment clarifies that when we refer to a ``major source'' of
hazardous air pollutants in 40 CFR 63.7681, we are referring to the
definition of major source in 40 CFR 63.2, and not, for example, to the
definition of major source in 40 CFR 51.166.

I. Editorial Corrections

    As proposed, we are correcting a grammatical error in 40 CFR
63.7710(b), which should refer to an emissions source subject to a
(rather than ``an'') PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in 40
CFR 63.7690(a). A comma is added to 40 CFR 63.7734(a)(11). The words
``as possible'' are added to 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i). The final
amendments also correct a misspelling of the word ``calendar'' in 40
CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii).

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

A. Language of Proposed Alternative Emissions Limits

    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed
alternative standards for PM or total metal HAP and conforming
amendments. However, the commenter believed that the wording of the
proposed limit for total metal HAP is ambiguous even though the meaning
is clear in context. According to the commenter, the proposed limit for
total metal HAP (0.008 lb/ton of total metal

HAP) could be construed to mean that the standard is 0.008 pounds of
some unspecified substance per ton of total metal HAP emitted. The
commenter recommended that EPA clarify the language to read ``0.008
pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged'' which
would be consistent with the language in Sec.  63.7690(a)(ii) for the
proposed alternative PM limit.
    Response: Section 63.7690(a)(2)(ii) of the proposed amendments
establishes the alternative limit for PM as 0.10 pound of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of metal charged; the lb/ton abbreviation is then used in
Sec.  63.7690(a)(2)(iv) for the total metal HAP limit. While we agree
with the commenter that the meaning is clear in context, we have
revised the language for the total metal HAP limit to read according to
the commenter's suggestion. For additional clarity, we have revised the
wording of both limits when they appear in conforming amendments to
read ``pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged'' and ``pound of
total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged.''

B. Mercury Emissions Limit

    Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA adopt stand-alone
mercury emissions standards similar to those in New Jersey.\1\ The
commenter explained that the rule requires iron and steel melters (at
both foundries and steel production plants) to meet a mercury emissions
limit of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or, in the
alternative, reduce mercury emissions by 75 percent using a mercury
control apparatus. The emission limit, which becomes effective in
January 2010, can be achieved through source separation measures and,
if necessary, additional exhaust controls. According to the commenter,
the emissions limit determines the success of the source separation
program and the need for add-on mercury control measures on the melter
exhaust. The commenter stated that one foundry had recently installed
an activated carbon injection system for mercury control and a baghouse
serving the cupola and that test results show greater than 90 percent
mercury control and emissions less than 3 mg/ton. According to the
commenter, other facilities with existing fabric filter control are
testing carbon injection and have reported compliance with the mercury
emissions limit but have not submitted formal test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection mercury regulations for iron and steel scrap melting
specify that mercury emissions from each melter shall not exceed 35
megagrams per ton of steel produced. Alternatively, mercury
emissions as measured at the exit of the mercury control apparatus
must be reduced by at least 75 percent (N.J.A.C. 7:27-27.6). These
rules have been upheld by the Appellate Division of the State
Superior Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As described in the preamble to the final NESHAP for Iron
and Steel Foundries (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the control systems
used at iron and steel foundries at the time the NESHAP was developed
were not effective in reducing mercury emissions. The pollution
prevention measure of removing mercury switches from automotive scrap
was determined to be a cost-effective ``beyond the MACT floor''
requirement and was included as a requirement in the final NESHAP as
part of the scrap selection and inspection program. The final NESHAP
was projected to reduce mercury emissions by 2,800 pounds per year at a
cost of $3.6 million per year (which includes increased cost of scrap
for removing the mercury switches). We recognize that there are other
mercury-containing devices in automotive scrap so that the pollution
prevention program required by the final NESHAP does not eliminate all
mercury from the scrap. At the time the NESHAP was developed, we
considered requirements for more stringent mercury reduction
requirements, either through additional scrap inspection and selection
inspection requirements specific to other mercury-containing devices or
through innovative mercury controls. Based on the small quantities of
mercury in these other devices, these options were determined to be
cost-ineffective.
    A re-evalulation of the MACT floor for the Iron and Steel NESHAP in
light of new control systems added to iron and steel foundries since
the NESHAP was first promulgated is outside the scope of the current
package of amendments. We did not include or take comment on a separate
mercury limit in our April 17, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Therefore, we are not including specific emission limits for mercury in
the final amendments. A technology review of the MACT standards is
required by the CAA eight years after promulgation. These newly
installed mercury controls will be considered in detail during this
technology review.

C. Information on Mercury Switch Removal From Scrap Suppliers

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should not revise Sec.
63.7700(b)(2) to eliminate the requirement that facilities buy scrap
only from suppliers willing to provide a copy of their procedures for
ensuring that mercury switches are removed from automobile bodies that
they supply. The commenter believed that no supplier will do this
unless foundries require it because suppliers that do provide a copy of
their procedures will be at a disadvantage to suppliers that either do
not remove the mercury switches or are unwilling to document their
removal procedures. According to the commenter, under the proposed
amendments, suppliers would not be penalized as they are under the
existing rule.
    The commenter stated that this proposed amendment increases mercury
emissions and that EPA did not provide an estimate of the health,
environmental, and economic impacts of the increase. The commenter also
claimed that because of limitations currently enforced on some sources,
the proposed amendment reduces the stringency of the rule below the
MACT floor for new sources and possibly for existing sources. According
to the commenter, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the CAA.
    Response: The amendment does not absolve the iron and steel foundry
from the responsibility to use automotive scrap that has had accessible
mercury switches removed. In previous amendments to the NESHAP (70 FR
29400, May 20, 2005), we included provisions for foundries to perform
inspections at the scrap supplier. Thus, the foundry should be able to
verify whether the supplier in fact removes accessible mercury
switches. The reason for the amendment is to clarify that EPA is not
imposing a regulatory burden on the scrap supplier through this rule.
EPA is not requiring scrap suppliers to provide the foundry with
written procedures for ensuring the mercury switches are removed.
Nevertheless, because we require foundries to purchase only automotive
scrap that has had accessible mercury switches removed from the trunks
and hoods of automobile bodies, a foundry is much more likely to do
business with a scrap supplier that supplies written procedures than
with one that does not. It is incumbent on the foundry to document
their attempt to obtain written procedures and to ensure, through site
inspections or other means, that any automotive scrap that they
purchase from their suppliers has had accessible mercury switches
removed from the trunks and hoods.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the
Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
These final amendments add a new compliance alternative, allow a new
alternative test method, and clarify requirements in the existing rule.
One amendment to the baghouse monitoring requirements clarifies our
original intent to require inspections of positive pressure baghouses
not equipped with a stack. No new burden is associated with this
requirement because the burden was included in the approved information
collection request (ICR) for the existing rule. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0543, EPA ICR number 2096.03. A copy of the OMB-approved ICR may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that these final amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The final amendments are expected to
result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector
and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments.
Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that these final
amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. These final amendments

contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and impose no
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    These final amendments do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final
amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these final
amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' These final amendments do not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final
amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these final amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. These final amendments are
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

    These final amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they
are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The
VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use
available and applicable VCS.
    These final amendments involve technical standards. Therefore the
Agency conducted a search to identify potential VCS in addition to the
EPA and alternative method. However, we identified no such standards
and none were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore EPA has
decided to use an alternative methodology, the NIOSH Method 2010,
``Amines, Aliphatic'' (incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14) for
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the TEA
concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core making line
provided the performance requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA
Method 18 are satisfied.
    For the methods required or referenced by these final amendments, a
source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods
or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under Sec. Sec.
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that these final amendments will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures
on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final
amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final amendments in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final amendments will be effective
on February 7, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 23, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I,
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

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

Subpart EEEEE--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.7681 is amended by revising the second sentence to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.7681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    * * * Your iron and steel foundry is a major source of HAP for
purposes of this subpart if it emits or has the potential to emit any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year or if it is located at a
facility that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of
25 tons or more per year as defined in Sec.  63.2.

0
4. Section 63.7690 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11)(i) and (ii); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7690  What emissions limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet the emissions limits or standards in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (11) of this section that apply to you. When alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a given emissions source, you
are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative
emissions limitation is used to demonstrate compliance.
* * * * *
    (2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total
metal HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section:
    (i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM; or
    (ii) 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged, or
    (iii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP; or
    (iv) 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged.
* * * * *
    (7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, you must not
discharge any fugitive emissions to the atmosphere from foundry
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed
27 percent opacity.
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (i) You must not discharge emissions of TEA through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(g); or
    (ii) You must reduce emissions of TEA from each TEA cold box mold
or core making line by at least 99 percent, as determined according to
the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(g).
    (b) * * *
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture and
collection system for all emissions sources subject to an emissions
limit for VOHAP or TEA in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this
section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.7700 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
c. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (c)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7700  What work practice standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Any post-consumer engine blocks, post-consumer oil
filters, or oily turnings that are processed and/or cleaned to the
extent practicable such that the materials do not include lead
components, mercury switches, chlorinated plastics, or free organic
liquids can be included in this certification.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater, electric arc metal
melting furnace, or electric induction metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, organic liquids, and a program to ensure the scrap materials are
drained of free liquids; or
    (ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of chlorinated plastic, and a program to
ensure the scrap materials are drained of free liquids.
    (2) * * * You must either obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had
mercury switches removed, as applicable, or document your attempts to
obtain a copy of these procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing
your area.
    (3) * * *
    (iii) The inspection procedures must include provisions for
rejecting or returning entire or partial scrap shipments that do not
meet specifications and limiting purchases from vendors whose shipments
fail to meet specifications for more than three inspections in one
calendar year.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) You must operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the
flame directly contacts the scrap charged; or
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.7710 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7710  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written

operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection system
and control device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP,
TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a). * * *
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.7731 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7731  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA
emissions limitations in Sec.  63.7690 for your iron and steel foundry
no less frequently than every 5 years and each time you elect to change
an operating limit or to comply with a different alternative emissions
limit, if applicable. * * *
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.7732 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating Equations 1 through 5 as Equations 3 through 7;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5) and
adding paragraph (b)(6) containing Equation 1;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and
(c)(5) and adding paragraph (c)(6) containing Equation 2;
0
e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, adding two sentences to
the end of paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraph (e)(3);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and (f)(3);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2), and (g)(4);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and
0
j. Adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7732  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry based on your selected compliance alternative,
if applicable, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and
the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
PM in Sec.  63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting furnace,
scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production conditions, which may include, but
are not limited to the following cycles: Charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping.
    (5) For scrap preheaters, sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are not limited to the following
cycles: Charging, heating, and discharging.
    (6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or
scrap preheater. For a cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron
and steel foundry that is subject to the PM emissions limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(ii), calculate the PM emissions rate in pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of metal charged using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.000

Where:

EFPM = Mass emissions rate of PM, pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of metal charged;
CPM = Concentration of PM measured during performance
test run, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry standard cubic feet per
minute (dscfm);
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during performance test
run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run, minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, grains per pound (gr/lb).

    (c) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
total metal HAP in Sec.  63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting
furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (2) A minimum of three valid test runs are needed to comprise a
performance test.
* * * * *
    (4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production conditions, which may include, but
are not limited to the following cycles: Charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping.
    (5) For scrap preheaters, sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are not limited to the following
cycles: Charging, heating, and discharging.
    (6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or
scrap preheater during each performance test run and calculate the
total metal HAP emissions rate (pounds of total metal HAP per ton (lb/
ton) of metal charged) using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.001

Where:

EFTMHAP = Emissions rate of total metal HAP, pounds of
total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged;
CTMHAP = Concentration of total metal HAP measured during
performance test run, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dscfm;
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during performance test
run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run, minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, gr/lb.

    (d) To determine compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(7) for fugitive emissions from buildings or structures
housing any iron and steel foundry emissions source at the iron and
steel foundry, follow the procedures

in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) * * * The certified observer may identify a limited number of
openings or vents that appear to have the highest opacities and perform
opacity observations on the identified openings or vents in lieu of
performing observations for each opening or vent from the building or
structure. Alternatively, a single opacity observation for the entire
building or structure may be performed, if the fugitive release points
afford such an observation.
    (2) During testing intervals when PM performance tests, if
applicable, are being conducted, conduct the opacity test such the
opacity observations are recorded during the PM performance tests.
    (e) * * *
    (3) For a cupola metal melting furnace, correct the measured
concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or TOC for oxygen content in the gas
stream using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.002

Where:
CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv as measured by
Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or the concentration of
TGNMO or TOC in ppmv as hexane as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A; and
%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream, percent by
volume (dry basis).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC emissions limit using Equation
4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.003

Where:

CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of VOHAP for the
source test in ppmv as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A or the average concentration of TGNMO for the source test
in ppmv as hexane as measured by Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; and
CCEM = Average concentration of total hydrocarbons in
ppmv as hexane as measured using the CEMS during the source test.

    (3) For two or more exhaust streams from one or more automated
conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines, compute
the flow-weighted average concentration of VOHAP emissions for each
combination of exhaust streams using Equation 5 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.004

Where:

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP or VOC, ppmv
(as hexane);
Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from exhaust stream
``i'', ppmv (as hexane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i,'', dscfm.

    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Method 18 to determine the TEA concentration. Alternatively,
you may use NIOSH Method 2010 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
63.14) to determine the TEA concentration provided the performance
requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied.
The sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that either
the TEA concentration in the field sample is at least 5 times the limit
of detection for the analytical method or the test results calculated
using the laboratory's reported analytical detection limit for the
specific field samples are less than \1/5\ of the applicable emissions
limit. When using Method 18, the adsorbent tube approach, as described
in section 8.2.4 of Method 18, may be required to achieve the necessary
analytical detection limits. The sampling time must be at least 1 hour
in all cases.
    (2) If you use a wet acid scrubber, conduct the test as soon as
practicable after adding fresh acid solution and the system has reached
normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
    (4) If you are subject to the 99 percent reduction standard,
calculate the mass emissions reduction using Equation 6 of this
section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.005

Where:

Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device inlet,
kilograms per hour (kg/hr); and
Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device outlet,
kg/hr.

    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Calculate the flow-weighted average emissions limit,
considering only the regulated streams, using Equation 5 of this
section, except Cw is the flow-weighted average emissions
limit for PM or total metal HAP in the exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and
Ci is the concentration of PM or total metal HAP in exhaust
stream ``i'', gr/dscf.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or total metal HAP concentration
of the combined exhaust stream both before and after the control device
and calculate the mass removal efficiency of the control device using
Equation 6 of this section, except Ei is the mass emissions
rate of PM or total metal HAP at the control device inlet, lb/hr and
Eo is the mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at
the control device outlet, lb/hr.
    (iii) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated
PM or total metal HAP concentration for the regulated emissions sources
using Equation 7 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE08.006

Where:

Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or total
metal HAP) predicted to be released to the atmosphere from the
regulated emissions source, gr/dscf; and
Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal HAP) in the
uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, gr/dscf.

    (i) To determine compliance with an emissions limit for situations
when multiple sources are controlled by a single control device, but
only one source operates at a time, or other situations that are not
expressly considered in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, a
site-specific test plan should be submitted to the Administrator for
approval according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(c)(2) and (3).

0
9. Section 63.7733 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2),
and (d)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7733  What procedures must I use to establish operating
limits?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Compute and record the average pressure drop and average
scrubber water flow rate for each valid sampling run in which the
applicable emissions limit is met.
    (c) * * *
    (2) Compute and record the average combustion zone temperature for
each valid sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
    (d) * * *
    (2) Compute and record the average scrubbing liquid flow rate for
each valid sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.7734 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(11) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7734  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?

    (a) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the emissions
limits in Sec.  63.7690(a) by meeting the applicable conditions in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (11) of this section. When alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a given emissions source, you
are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative
emissions limitation is used to demonstrate compliance.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/dscf; or
    (iii) The average PM mass emissions rate, determined according to
the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did not exceed
0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; or
    (iv) The average total metal HAP mass emissions rate, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(c), did
not exceed 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged.
* * * * *
    (7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, the opacity of
fugitive emissions from foundry operations discharged to the
atmosphere, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec.  63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent (6-minute average), except
for one 6-minute average per hour that did not exceed 27 percent
opacity.
* * * * *
    (11) For each TEA cold box mold or core making line in a new or
existing iron and steel foundry, the average TEA concentration,
determined according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(g), did not exceed 1 ppmv or was reduced by 99 percent.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.7736 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7736  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) You have submitted the bag leak detection system monitoring
information to the Administrator within the written O&M plan for
approval according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7710(b);
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.7740 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (g) as (d) through (h); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7740  What are my monitoring requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack that is applied to meet any PM or total
metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must at all times
monitor the relative change in PM loadings using a bag leak detection
system according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7741(b).
    (c) For each baghouse, regardless of type, that is applied to meet
any PM or total metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you
must conduct inspections at their specified frequencies according to
the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this
section.
    (1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
    (2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
    (3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
    (4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
    (5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspections or equivalent means.
    (6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
    (7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.7741 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv),
and (a)(2)(vi);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and
(c)(2)(iv);
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(8); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7741  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.

    (2) * * *
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close as possible to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure and
that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
* * * * *
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily. If a ``non-
clogging'' pressure tap is used, check for pluggage monthly.
    (iv) Using a manometer or equivalent device such as a magnahelic or
other pressure indicating transmitter, check gauge and transducer
calibration quarterly.
* * * * *
    (vi) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
* * * * *
    (b) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack that is applied to meet any PM or total
metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must install,
operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily. If a ``non-
clogging'' pressure tap is used, check for pluggage monthly.
    (iv) Using a manometer or equivalent device such as a magnahelic or
other pressure indicating transmitter, check gauge and transducer
calibration quarterly.
* * * * *
    (vi) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
    (2) * * *
    (iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
    (d) * * *
    (8) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.7743 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a second sentence to the end of paragraph (a) introductory
text and removing the colon after the first sentence in paragraph (a)
in text and adding period in its place;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and
(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7743  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?

    (a) * * * When alternative emissions limitations are provided for a
given emissions source, you must comply with the alternative emissions
limitation most recently selected as your compliance alternative.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf; or
    (iii) Maintaining the average PM mass emissions rate at or below
0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged; or
    (iv) Maintaining the average total metal HAP mass emissions rate at
or below 0.008 pound of total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged.
* * * * *
    (7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, maintaining the
opacity of any fugitive emissions from foundry operations discharged to
the atmosphere at or below 20 percent opacity (6-minute average),
except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 27
percent opacity.
* * * * *
    (c) For each baghouse,
    (1) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements of Sec.  63.7740(c)(1) through (8) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (2) If the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak detection system,
maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system sounded,
and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.7750 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (e) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7750  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) * * * For opacity performance tests, the notification of
compliance status may be submitted with the semiannual compliance
report in Sec.  63.7751(a) and (b) or the semiannual part 70 monitoring
report in Sec.  63.7551(d).
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.7751 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7751  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan and the source exceeds any applicable emissions
limitation in Sec.  63.7690, you must submit an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report according to the requirements of Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
* * * * *

0
17. Section 63.7752 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7752  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (4) Records of the annual quantity of each chemical binder or
coating material used to coat or make molds and cores, the Material
Data Safety Sheet or other documentation that provides the chemical
composition of each component, and the annual quantity of HAP used in
these chemical binder or coating materials at the foundry as calculated
from the recorded quantities and chemical compositions (from Material
Data Safety Sheets or other documentation).
* * * * *

0
18. Section 63.7765 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definition for ``Deviation'';
0
b. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Offblast'' and ``On
blast''; and
0
c. Revising the definitions ``Scrap preheater'' and adding ``Total
metal HAP'' 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;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any iron and steel foundry
required to obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation (including operating
limits) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
    A deviation is not always a violation. The determination of whether
a deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to the
discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the standards.
* * * * *
    Off blast means those periods of cupola operation when the cupola
is not actively being used to produce molten metal. Off blast
conditions include cupola startup when air is introduced to the cupola
to preheat the sand bed and other cupola startup procedures as defined
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Off blast conditions
also include idling conditions when the blast air is turned off or down
to the point that the cupola does not produce additional molten metal.
    On blast means those periods of cupola operation when combustion
(blast) air is introduced to the cupola furnace and the furnace is
capable of producing molten metal. On blast conditions are
characterized by both blast air introduction and molten metal
production.
    Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate volatile impurities or other tramp
materials by direct flame heating or similar means of heating. Scrap
dryers, which solely remove moisture from metal scrap, are not
considered to be scrap preheaters for purposes of this subpart.
    Total metal HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of
the concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by
EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only the measured
concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations
exceeding one-half the quantitation limit of the analytical method are
to be used in the sum. If any of the analytes are not detected or are
detected at concentrations less than one-half the quantitation limit of
the analytical method, the concentration of those analytes will be
assumed to be zero for the purposes of calculating the total metal HAP
for this subpart.
* * * * *

0
19. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is amended by revising the entry for Sec.
63.9 to read as follows:

            Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Applies to subpart
              Citation                       Subject                 EEEEE?                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.9...............................  Notification            Yes...................  Except: for opacity
                                      requirements.                                   performance tests, Subpart
                                                                                EEEEE allows the
                                                                                notification of compliance
                                                                                status to be submitted
                                                                                with the semiannual
                                                                                compliance report or the
                                                                                semiannual part 70
                                                                                monitoring report.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-1979 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44299-44300]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18234]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9997-98-ORD]

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods;
Designation of One New Equivalent Method

AGENCY: Office of Research and Development; Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the designation of a new equivalent method for
monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated one new equivalent method for measuring
concentrations of ozone (O3) in ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods
and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth
in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting
their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all reference or
equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new equivalent
method for measuring concentrations of O3 in ambient air.
This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as
amended on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291-65468). This new equivalent
method for O3 is an automated method (analyzer) utilizing
the measurement principle based on UV photometry. This newly designated
equivalent method is identified as follows:
    EQOA-0719-253, ``Focused Photonics Inc. AQMS-300 O3
Analyzer'' UV photometric analyzer operated the range of 0-0.5 ppm,
with 5 [micro]m, 47 mm diameter Teflon[supreg] (PTFE) filter installed,

operated at temperatures between 20[deg]C and 30[deg]C, at nominal
input line voltage of 22010% VAC and frequency of 50 Hz, at
a nominal sampling flow rate of 80080 cc/min, and operated
according to the FPI AQMS-300 User Manual.
    This application for an equivalent method determination for this
O3 method was received by the Office of Research and
Development on June 10, 2019. This analyzer is commercially available
from the applicant, Focused Photonics Inc. (FPI), 760 Bin`an Road,
Binjiang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
    A representative test analyzer was tested in accordance with the
applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on
October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other
information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with part 53, that this method should be designated as an
equivalent method.
    As a designated equivalent method, this method is acceptable for
use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements
of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes,
this method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or
instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any
specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational
settings) specified in the designated method description (see the
identification of the method above).
    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program,'' EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods
by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by
Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions
should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurement
Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
    Designation of this equivalent method is intended to assist the
States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance
systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial
availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to
the applicant.

    Dated: July 31, 2019.
Timothy H. Watkins,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2019-18234 Filed 8-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P