consistent with rule development documents contained within the docket.
The commenter asked that EPA clarify that only new affected sources at
copper foundries or other nonferrous foundries that melt 6,000 tpy or
greater of metal would be required to operate bag leak detection
systems.
    Response: We have made a minor revision to the rule to further
clarify that only new affected sources at a large foundry, defined as a
copper or other nonferrous foundry with an annual copper and other
nonferrous metal melt capacity of 6,000 tpy or greater, would be
required to install and operate bag leak detection systems. Owners or
operators of existing affected sources are not required to install a
bag leak detection system, although they could choose to install one as
a method of monitoring in lieu of visual emission observations.
    Comment: Two commenters requested clarification on the proposed
regulatory language that the monitoring requirements in section
63.11552 are applicable only to copper and other nonferrous foundries
subject to the PM emissions limits and that have emissions controlled
with a fabric filter. Other commenters said that the

proposed regulation states that a foundry subject to this provision
``must conduct visible monitoring of the monovent or fabric filter
outlet stack(s) for any visible emissions.'' The commenters request
that EPA clarify this provision because the term ``monovent'' is not
common to the metal casting industry, and one commenter recommended
deleting the term altogether, or if it is kept, it should be defined.
One commenter also said that if this requirement is to monitor VE from
a stack associated with a melting furnace, then the reference to
``monovent or fabric filter outlet stack(s)'' is too limiting because
it does not include other add-on control or point source discharge
options for copper and other nonferrous foundries. The commenter
requests that EPA clarify this provision to specify the point of
monitoring for VE. The commenter noted that the proposed regulation
provides further confusion with the reference to ``fugitive
emissions,'' which is not consistent with the requirements discussed
above that require monitoring of VE from outlet stacks.
    One commenter stated the monitoring requirements contain language
regarding the observance of ``visible fugitive emissions'' relative to
visual monitoring and requires visual monitoring of a monovent or
fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE. The commenter stated since it
appears that the intent is to require visual monitoring of the outlet
of a baghouse, the use of the term ``fugitive'' would not be
appropriate based on the definition of ``fugitive emissions.''
    Response: We have clarified the VE monitoring requirements in the
final rule to address the commenters' concerns. If an owner or operator
of a large copper or other nonferrous foundry with an existing melting
operation chooses to meet the PM standards using fabric filters, then
the owner or operator must conduct VE monitoring. Monitoring the VE is
a method to ensure that the fabric filters used to control PM emissions
operate properly on a continuing basis. The VE monitoring is required
only for fabric filters at existing large foundries (i.e., copper or
other nonferrous foundries that melt 6,000 tpy or more of material
containing a copper foundry or other nonfoundry HAP collectively). In
the alternative, owners or operators may install a bag leak detection
system on the fabric filter system as a way of ensuring that it is
operating correctly. We have deleted the term ``fugitive emissions''
and ``monovent'' from the monitoring requirements and revised the rule
to require that the owner or operator must look at the discharge
point(s) of the fabric filter for any VE. Depending on the type and
configuration of the fabric filter, the discharge point(s) could be a
single stack, multiple stacks, monovent, or other location.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should not be more
restrictive than the existing individual State permits in regard to VE
and recommended that EPA change the language in the rule that says ``if
the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE * * *'', to
replace the term ``any'' with ``abnormal.''
    Response: Based on our historical experience and the precedent used
in other rules (e.g., the area source standard for ferroalloys in 40
CFR part 63, subpart YYYYYY), a properly designed and operated fabric
filter will not release any VE under normal operating conditions. The
use of the term ``abnormal'' suggests that some VE are acceptable. We
continue to require that the fabric filter outlet (discharge) be
observed for any VE, and if VE are observed, corrective action should
be taken to repair the cause of the emissions.
    Comment: One commenter said that the proposed regulations provide
that a facility subject to daily VE monitoring can switch to weekly VE
monitoring after 90 consecutive days of no VE recorded. The commenter
stated that demonstrating no VE for 5 consecutive days should be
sufficient to allow weekly VE monitoring because that period of time
would show that the fabric filter had been properly designed and had no
VE. The commenter claimed that generally if VE are not observed in a 5
consecutive day period, then VE are unlikely to be observed at all
(based on the minimal operational changes that are expected from most
foundries). According to the commenter, weekly VE monitoring is also
less burdensome on the foundry and would, in most cases, provide
adequate safeguards that the baghouse is functioning properly.
    Response: We have reconsidered the requirement that an owner or
operator must conduct daily observations with no VE for 90 consecutive
days of monitoring prior to reducing the observation frequency to
weekly, and we agree that a shorter time period before reducing to
weekly observations would be just as effective. We have revised the
final rule to allow weekly observations after 30 consecutive days of
observations with no VE because it provides assurance that the baghouse
has been properly designed and properly installed as shown by 30
consecutive days of operation with no visible leaks.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the time for taking corrective
action in response to a bag leak detection alarm must be increased for
reasons of worker safety and environmental protection. The commenter
stated the proposal requires that covered foundries ``must initiate
procedures to determine the cause at every alarm from a bag leak
detection system within 1 hour of the alarm and alleviate the cause of
the alarm within 3 hours by taking whatever corrective actions are
necessary,'' and longer times for initiating and taking corrective
action are authorized by the proposal ``if you identify in the
monitoring plan this specific condition as one that would lead to an
alarm'' and ``adequately explain why it is not feasible to alleviate
this condition within 3 hours.'' The commenter believes these
requirements fail to account for the conditions under which baghouses
operate in foundries and to demand perfect forseeability to avoid
violations. He noted that baghouses in foundries operate at extremely
high temperatures, and baghouse alarms may occur when metal is being
melted or when molten metal is being cast. According to the commenter,
the billet and the furnace must cool sufficiently before the baghouse
compartment can be safely entered. Also, according to the commenter,
stringent company protocols for inspecting and replacing bags typically
require that collectors cool for 24 to 72 hours after a furnace is shut
down before entry into the collector is permitted. The commenter does
not believe that it is productive in its monitoring plan to attempt to
predict the entire universe of ``specific conditions'' that may trigger
the alarm and to ``adequately explain'' why it is not feasible to
complete all of the necessary corrective actions within 3 hours.
    According to another commenter, these time frames are totally
unrealistic and inappropriate for copper and other nonferrous foundries
because most, if not all, of these foundries are small businesses and
do not always have a fulltime employee dedicated solely to
environmental compliance. The commenter said that, while identifying
the cause of an emissions occurrence and taking steps to address it in
a timely fashion is desirable, more realistic time frames for
responding are necessary. The commenter suggested that EPA consider a
more realistic requirement, such as a facility must take steps to
identify the cause within 24 hours and must take steps to alleviate the
cause within 72 hours.

    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the corrective action
response requirements should be revised to provide more time. EPA has
applied these same corrective action time frames in the monitoring
requirements for several similar source categories, and we are not
aware of any implementation problems. The bag leak detection
requirements include a provision, as the commenter noted, to provide
more time when there are extenuating circumstances or conditions. It is
appropriate that these conditions be identified in the monitoring plan.
An owner or operator should consider amending its monitoring plan to
account for events that it subsequently learns require longer time
periods for correction.
    Similar to bag leak detection alarms, we agree that there may be
occasions when the cause of VE cannot be corrected within 3 hours. We
have revised the rule to incorporate a provision that parallels that of
the bag leak detection requirement. The new provision requires that the
owner or operator identify in a monitoring plan the specific conditions
that would lead to VE and adequately explain why it is not feasible to
alleviate this condition within 3 hours.
    Comment: One commenter said EPA details bag leak detection system
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for new affected
sources equipped with a fabric filter and requires existing facilities
subject to section 63.11551(b) to prepare and submit an operation and
maintenance plan for control devices other than fabric filters. The
commenter asked that EPA consider requiring all affected sources
subject to the emission limits in section 63.11550(b), including
existing sources that are not required to install a bag leak detection
system, to prepare and operate according to an operation and
maintenance plan for each control device. Additionally, the commenter
asked that EPA also consider requiring affected sources subject to
emission limits under section 63.11550(b) to install and maintain each
capture and collection system to meet acceptable engineering standards,
such as those published by the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists.
    Response: As we stated at proposal, monitoring fabric filters at
existing sources for any VE provides assurance that the bags are not
leaking and that the fabric filter is performing properly. Corrective
action is required if any VE are observed. Consequently, we do not
think that the additional monitoring burden recommended by the
commenter (preparing an operation and maintenance plan or specifying
the standard to which capture and collection systems must be installed)
would result in an improvement in emission control. Furthermore, they
would impose an additional burden on many small businesses.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that EPA provides no technical basis
for the ``no VE'' requirement for copper and other nonferrous foundries
in the administrative record for this proposed regulation. According to
the commenter, without any technical basis or data to support a ``no
VE'' requirement for either stack emissions or fugitive emissions, the
requirement cannot represent a GACT standard for copper and other
nonferrous foundry area sources. The commenter stated that the ``no
VE'' requirement is unsubstantiated and inappropriate.
    Response: There is not a ``no VE'' requirement; the requirement is
to take corrective action if VE are observed from a baghouse because
(as discussed above) a properly designed, operated, and maintained
baghouse should not have VE. In addition, the observation of VE for
baghouses is a baghouse monitoring option that only an existing
affected facility may use. In the alternative, an existing affected
facility may install and operate a bag leak detection system as a way
of monitoring the proper operation of its baghouses. Monitoring
requirements are not GACT; rather, they are based on monitoring certain
parameters that would indicate that the control device (e.g., a
baghouse) is operating properly. It is well established that if VE
occur from a baghouse that is used on the exhaust of a melting furnace,
then there is a problem with the baghouse (e.g., leaks or tears in the
fabric). This monitoring option was previously used in the area source
standard developed for ferroalloy furnaces (40 CFR Part 63, subpart
YYYYYY), and we proposed it in this rule as a monitoring option for
baghouses used on the exhausts of melting furnaces. As mentioned
earlier, a facility has the option of monitoring with a bag leak
detection system if there is a particular reason they do not want to
monitor for VE.

G. Testing Requirements

    Comment: One commenter noted that many of the existing emission
control devices that will be subject to the PM emission limit may
require significant physical modification in order to conduct the
testing in accordance with the test protocols, and these modifications
will substantially increase the cost of the testing, but will not
affect the performance of the control device. The commenter stated that
in some cases the ductwork modifications will have to be removed after
the test is completed. The commenter estimates that as many as 95
percent of the affected control devices may never have been tested
based primarily on the fact that the State permitting agency did not
feel that such testing was necessary. Given the alternate emission
limit of grains per dry standard cubic feet specified within the rule,
the commenter believes that VE observations at the outlet of the
baghouse provides adequate assurance that the fabric filter is
performing in accordance with the rule. The commenter also stated that
many State permitting authorities have already adopted VE observations
as the only monitoring. The commenter recommended that the area source
rule allow an affected facility to use observance of VE as an
acceptable method of demonstrating compliance.
    The commenter continued by stating that if EPA disagrees with the
above recommendation, then EPA should amend the 5-year period for which
the results of a prior performance test can be used to demonstrate
compliance. The commenter recommended that any existing affected
facility that has performed stack tests, regardless of when those tests
may have been performed, should be able to use the results to document
compliance with the rule as long as the facility is able to provide
copies of the maintenance records documenting volume tests, filter
changes, and general maintenance done to the equipment upon request.
    One commenter operates a brass foundry that voluntarily installed
baghouse controls for the melting and pouring operations at the foundry
about 17 years ago to capture the metal fume emissions, and currently
there are nine separate baghouse modules with a common fan and inlet,
but nine individual discharge stacks of which none are testable. The
commenter considers the cost to build and test each of these stacks to
be an economic hardship for his facility for what he believes to be
zero environmental gain.
    The commenter stated that manufacturers of baghouse modules like
the ones currently in operation at this facility will guarantee new
units to meet an outlet particulate concentration of 0.015 gr/dscf for
the melting operation. Based on this, the commenter said that an
alternative compliance method could be to inspect the system for leaks
using accepted visual inspection methods, and such inspections could be
done by third party consultants at a more acceptable cost to show that
the filters

have been properly installed and functioning as they were intended.
    The commenter also stated that broken bag detectors might be used
to show both the initial compliance and add a layer of security to the
long term leak detection of the emission control system. According to
the commenter, broken bag detectors for this system would not be
inexpensive, but would likely be a much lower cost than to build and
test nine stacks. The commenter said that this facility has over time
found a steady state operating range for its fume control system, and
by monitoring the cleaning cycle frequency, can detect the slightest
system change or failure and react to fix the problem at the start of
the failure. The commenter asked that this use of innovative technology
should be considered as an acceptable compliance tool.
    The commenter said this facility has already installed the emission
control for foundry melting operations, but believes that the cost of
testing to show compliance is too high for his facility. The commenter
asked if ``no VE'' criteria could be used as acceptable compliance
method for facility emissions.
    Response: We understand the commenters' concerns regarding the
costs to conduct the compliance tests; however, we have defined GACT
for the affected facilities to include a PM emission limit, and
compliance with this limit must be demonstrated by compliance testing.
We agree that testing all nine stacks is not necessary if the melting
operation and expected emissions are similar across the stacks. We
revised the rule to allow the owner or operator to perform the
performance testing on one or more representative stacks with the
approval of the Administrator or his or her authorized representative
(e.g., a State that has been delegated authority to implement and
enforce this rule). The owner or operator must provide data or an
adequate explanation why the stack(s) chosen for testing are
representative. We note that testing contractors have methods and
procedures to make a baghouse ``testable,'' such as adding a temporary
stack extension to a short stack to meet Method 5 criteria. However, we
did not revise the requirements for the use of prior test results to
allow tests that may have been conducted long ago, perhaps when the
baghouse was first installed, and continue to limit the use of prior
tests to the preceding 5 years from the compliance date. We are
concerned that testing performed more than 5 years from the compliance
date, which is beyond the term of a typical operating permit, would not
be representative of current operation.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement that the
facility ``must operate each melting furnace within +/- 10 percent of
the normal process rate'' during the performance test is not consistent
with some State requirements for performance testing and requested that
EPA consider regulatory language that allows for an alternate method
that is approved by another permitting authority.
    Response: We agree that the testing requirement discussed by the
commenter may not be consistent with requirements in existing permits
and may not be appropriate in all cases. We deleted this testing
requirement from the final rule and note that the requirements for
conducting performance tests are already addressed in the applicable
General Provisions (section 63.7(e)(1)), which specify that performance
tests be ``based on representative performance (i.e., performance based
on normal operating conditions) of the affected source.''

H. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the proposed title V permit
exemption, noting such factors as the adequacy of existing State
programs to ensure compliance, the additional economic and other
burdens imposed by title V permitting, and the lack of technical
resources to comply with permitting requirements for facilities that
are mostly small businesses support the exemption.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for the exemption
from title V permitting requirements in this rule.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the agency's proposal to exempt
the three area source categories from title V requirements is unlawful
and arbitrary. The commenter states that section 502(a) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to exempt area source categories from title V permitting
requirements if the Administrator finds that compliance with such
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a). The commenter notes that EPA
did not claim that title V requirements are impracticable or infeasible
for any of the source categories it proposes to exempt, but that EPA
instead relied entirely on its claim that title V would be
``unnecessarily burdensome.''
    Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

* * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion and
consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter,
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major
source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area)
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If Congress had
wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category
could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the
word ``and,'' in place of ``or''.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V,
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why,
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated

above, the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area
source category from title V if he determines that compliance with
title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In
December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-
factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an
exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19,
2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor balancing
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source
categories.
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3)
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily
burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent
with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely
affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 15254-
15255, March 25, 2005. As shown above, after conducting the four-
factor balancing test and determining that title V requirements
would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories at
issue here, we examined whether the exemption from title V would
adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment, and
found that it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502,
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502.
EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the February 9, 2009 proposed rule
for the categories at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-
factor balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source
categories for which we proposed title V exemptions. Had we sought to
re-open our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in
CAA section 502 and modify it from what was articulated in the
Exemption Rule, we would have stated so in the February 9, 2009
proposed rule and solicited comments on a revised interpretation, which
we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the commenter's attempt to create
a new test for determining what constitutes ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as that issue falls outside the
purview of this rulemaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in the Exemption Rule, it should have
commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the
Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although we
received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the
rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, were the comment framed as a request to reopen our
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section
502, which it is not, we would deny such request because we have a
court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by June 15, 2009. In
any event, although the commenter espouses a new interpretation of the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and attempts to
create a new test for determining whether the requirements of title V
are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for an area source category, the
commenter does not explain why EPA's interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not
in accordance with law. We maintain that our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in section 502, as set forth in the
Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
    Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source category from
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting
information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance
information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that
information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a
State and local level. The commenter stated that Congress did not think
that enforcement by States or other government entities was enough; if
it had, Congress would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions,
and the legislative history of the CAA would not show that Congress
viewed citizens' access to information and ability to enforce CAA
requirements as highly important both as an individual right and as a
crucial means to ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a
source does not have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--
depending on the laws, regulations and practices of the State in which
the source operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant
information about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter
stated that likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to
bring enforcement actions. The commenter continued that EPA does not
claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be
required--that citizens would have the same ability to obtain
compliance and emissions information about sources in the categories it
proposes to exempt without title V permits. The commenter also said
that likewise, EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with
substantial evidence--that citizens would have the same enforcement
ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the

exemptions EPA proposes plainly eliminate benefits that Congress
thought necessary. The commenter claimed that to justify its
exemptions, EPA would have to show that the informational and
enforcement benefits that Congress intended title V to confer--benefits
which the commenter argues are eliminated by the exemptions--are for
some reason unnecessary with respect to the categories it proposes to
exempt. The commenter concluded that EPA does not even acknowledge
these benefits of title V, far less explain why they are unnecessary,
and that for this reason alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful
and arbitrary.
    Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome''
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome''
in CAA section 502. EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the
facts of the three source categories at issue in this rule, and the
commenter has not identified any flaw in EPA's application of the four
factor test to the three area source categories at issue here.
    Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we considered
implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four-
factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA's
unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on
title V permits. See 70 FR 75326.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the
CAA. As stated in the proposal, we believe that State-delegated
programs are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that
EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR
6521. We also indicated that States and EPA often conduct voluntary
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs to assist
sources and that these additional programs will supplement and enhance
the success of compliance with this NESHAP. See 74 FR 6521. The
commenter does not challenge the conclusion that there are adequate
State and Federal programs in place to ensure compliance with and
enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an
unsubstantiated assertion that information about compliance by the area
sources with these NESHAP will not be as accessible to the public as
information provided to a State pursuant to title V. In fact, the
commenter does not provide any information that States will treat
information submitted under these NESHAP differently than information
submitted pursuant to a title V permit.
    Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, which we
dispute, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA
concluded that there are adequate implementation and enforcement
programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no
information to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V
actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of
these NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we
evaluated in determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome. As explained above, we considered that factor together with
the other factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize
the proposed exemptions for the area source categories at issue in this
rule.
    Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond
those required by the regulations for each category. The commenter said
that in its proposal EPA proposed to require ``management practices
currently used at most facilities is GACT for all foundries in each of
the three source categories. 74 Fed. Reg. at 6520.'' The commenter
further states that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard, by
including these practices, provides monitoring in the form of
recordkeeping that would `assure compliance' with the requirements of
the proposed rule. Id. at 6521.'' The commenter maintains that EPA made
conclusory assertions and that the Agency failed to provide any
evidence to demonstrate that the proposed monitoring requirements will
assure compliance with the NESHAP for the exempt sources. The commenter
stated that, for this reason as well, its claim that title V
requirements are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary and
capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used the four-factor
test to determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source
categories. See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor
that EPA evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which
those requirements are consistent with the requirements of title V. See
70 FR 75323.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard,
including these practices, `provides monitoring in the form of
recordkeeping that will assure compliance with the requirements of the
proposed rule.' '' The commenter has taken a phrase from the preamble
out of context to imply that EPA has only required monitoring in the
form of recordkeeping. In the proposal, we stated:

    EPA is proposing that a PM emission limit based on the use of
fabric filters is GACT for copper and other nonferrous foundries
melting 6,000 tpy or more of metal, and that management practices
currently used at most facilities is GACT for all foundries in each
of the three source categories. This proposed rule would require
daily (or weekly) VE determinations for existing sources, bag leak
detection system for new sources, recordkeeping, and deviation
reporting to assure compliance with this NESHAP. The monitoring
component of the first factor favors title V exemption because this
proposed standard would provide for monitoring that assures
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. For existing
sources located at copper or other nonferrous foundries processing
6,000 tpy or more of total metal, this proposed NESHAP would set an
emission limit that would require the use of a PM control system
(i.e., fabric filter) with daily VE determinations. For new and
existing sources located at aluminum, copper, or nonferrous
foundries, the proposed NESHAP would require management practices to
control emissions from melting furnaces. For the management
practices, recordkeeping would be required to assure that the
management practices are implemented, such as the use of covers or

enclosures during melting and the purchase and use of materials that
have been depleted (to the extent practicable) of aluminum foundry
HAP, copper foundry HAP, and other nonferrous foundry HAP.

See 74 FR 6520.
    We nowhere state or imply that the only monitoring required for the
rule is in the form of recordkeeping. As the above excerpt states, we
required periodic monitoring, i.e., inspection for VE, of emission
control devices for existing affected sources and continuous
monitoring, i.e., bag leak detection system, for new affected sources
when the rule requires the installation of such controls. This
monitoring is in addition to the recordkeeping that serves as
monitoring for the management practices. For the final rule, we have
added a requirement for monthly inspections to assure that the
management practices are being implemented. The commenter does not
provide any evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the proposed
monitoring requirements are sufficient to assure compliance with the
standards in the rule.
    Based on the foregoing, we considered whether title V monitoring
requirements would lead to significant improvements in the monitoring
requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they would not.
We believe that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance.
    For the reasons described above and in the proposed rule, the first
factor supports exempting these three area source categories from title
V requirements. Assuming, for arguments sake, that the first factor
alone cannot support the exemption, the four-factor balancing test
requires EPA to examine the factors in combination and determine
whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See
70 FR 75326. As explained above, we determined that the factors,
weighed together, support exemption of the area source categories from
title V.
    Comment: One commenter believes that EPA cannot justify exempting
the source from title V by asserting that compliance with title V
requirements poses a significant burden. According to the commenter,
regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as ``significant,'' the
Agency may not exempt a category from compliance with title V
requirements unless compliance is ``unnecessarily burdensome.'' Or in
the commenter's words, that ``the compliance burden is especially
great.'' The commenter stated that in any event, EPA's claims about the
alleged burden of compliance is entirely conclusory and could be
applied equally to any major or area source category; therefore, the
commenter claims that EPA has not justified why these three sources
should be exempt from title V permitting as opposed to any other
category.
    Response: As we have stated before, we found the burden placed on
these sources in complying with the title V requirements is
unnecessarily burdensome when we applied the four-factor balancing
test. We did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in this rule. As explained above, we
maintain that the Agency's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome,'' as set forth in the Exemption Rule and reiterated in the
proposal to this rule, is reasonable.
    In applying the four-factor test, we properly analyzed the second
factor, i.e., will title V permitting impose a significant burden on
the area source, and will that burden be aggravated by any difficulty
that the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting
agency. See 70 FR 75320. EPA found that the sources would have a
significant burden because we estimated that the average cost of
obtaining and complying with a title V permit in general was $65,700
per source for a 5-year permit period. Id. In addition, EPA estimates
that more than 300 of the affected sources would need to get a title V
permit, absent the exemption finalized in the rule. In addition, EPA
found that 98 percent of the sources affected by the rule are small
businesses, most with fewer than 50 employees and about 25 percent or
more with only one to four employees. Small businesses, such as most
all of the foundries in these three source categories, often lack the
technical resources to comply with the permitting requirements and the
financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or outside
consultants. EPA found that not only is the individual cost of
permitting significant for these source categories (i.e., $65,700), but
also the cost to the source categories as a whole is significant.
Furthermore, given the number of affected sources in these three
categories (i.e., more than 300), it would likely be difficult for them
to obtain assistance from the permitting authorities. These specific
factors for the affected sources alone justify that EPA has properly
exempted the source categories from title V. However, as discussed in
the proposal and above, EPA analyzed all of the four factors in making
its determination that these sources should be exempt from title V
permitting requirements; and we found that the totality of these
factors weighs heavily in favor of the exemption.
    Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA's
finding (i.e., that the burden of obtaining a title V permit is
significant does not equate to the required finding that the burden is
unnecessary) is misplaced. While EPA could have found that the second
factor alone could justify the exemption, EPA found that the other
three factors also support exempting the sources from the title V
requirements because the permitting requirements are unnecessarily
burdensome for these three source categories. We also disagree with the
commenter that EPA has not provided a source-specific analysis that the
burden for these three source categories is unnecessarily burdensome.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance
with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (74 FR 6521). The commenter stated
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency
provides no specific reasons to believe--with respect to any of the
categories it proposes to exempt--that the additional informational,
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that
exist in title V, but not in these NESHAP, would not provide additional
compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that the only basis for
EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those additional
requirements never confer additional compliance benefits. According to
the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate
its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's
text and legislative history.
    Response: The commenter takes out of context certain statements in
the proposed rule concerning the factors used in the balancing test to
determine if imposition of title V permit requirements is unnecessarily
burdensome for the source categories. The commenter also
mischaracterizes the first of the four-factor balancing test with
regard to determining whether imposition of title V would result in
significant improvements in compliance. In addition, the commenter
mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the balancing test
which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in compliance that
would result from the imposition of the title V requirements.
    First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never
confers

additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. While EPA
recognizes that requiring a title V permit offers additional compliance
options, the statute provides that EPA must assess whether compliance
with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome to the specific area
source. For the three source categories subject to this rulemaking, EPA
concluded that requiring title V permits would be unnecessarily
burdensome.
    Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant
improvements in compliance requirements.
    EPA feels that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the
requirements of this rule and are sufficient to allow the public the
opportunity to obtain knowledge about the source, consistent with the
goal in title V permitting. For example, in the Initial Notification,
the source must identify its size, whether it must meet any of the GACT
requirements in the rule, and how it plans to comply with the rule
requirements. The source must also certify how it is complying and that
it has complied with the requirements to institute the management
practices, to establish recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance with
the management practices, to install controls, if necessary, to
establish monitoring of the controls as required, and to establish
recordkeeping regarding the inspections of the controls and any
corrective actions taken as a result of seeing any visual monitoring.
See Sec.  63.11553 in the final rule. These two reports are available
to the public once the source has filed them with the permitting
agency. The source must also keep records and conduct inspections to
document that it is complying with the management practices finalized
in this rule. See Sec.  63.11553 in the final rule. The source must
monitor and record the VE from the PM control, if applicable, must
begin corrective action and record the specifics about the corrective
action upon seeing any VE from the control. The source must also submit
deviation reports to the permitting agency every 6 months if there has
been a deviation in the requirements of the rule. See Sec.  63.11553 in
the final rule. Again, these deviation reports are available to the
public once the source has submitted them to the permitting agency. EPA
believes that these requirements in the rule itself, including the
requirement to provide information about the source's compliance that
is available to the public, provide sufficient basis to ensure
compliance, and does not feel that the title V requirements, if
applicable to these sources, would offer significant improvements in
the compliance of the sources with the rule.
    Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination.
    Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether
the costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in
compliance. In other words, EPA must view the costs of title V
permitting requirements, considering any improvement in compliance
above what the rule requires. EPA reviewed the three area source
categories at issue and determined that fewer than 20 of the more than
300 sources that would be subject to the rule currently have a title V
permit. As stated in the proposal (74 FR 6521), EPA estimated that the
average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was
$65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, 72 FR 32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. Based
on this information, EPA determined that there is a significant cost
burden to the industry to require title V permitting for all the
sources subject to the rule. In addition, in analyzing factor one, EPA
found that imposition of the title V requirements offers no significant
improvements in compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated
in part that, ``Because the costs of compliance with title V are so
high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, we are
proposing that title V permitting is not justified for these source
categories. Accordingly, the third factor supports the proposed title V
exemptions for aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries area
sources.'' See 74 FR 6521.
    Most importantly, EPA considered all four factors in the balancing
test in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the
area source categories. EPA found it reasonable after considering all
four factors to exempt these three source categories from the
permitting requirements in title V. This rulemaking did not re-open
EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA
section 502. Because the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a
flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the
specific facts of the source categories at issue here, the comments
provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt
the area source categories from title V.
    Comment: According to one commenter, ``[t]he agency does not
identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with
respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area
source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V
compliance is unnecessary.'' Instead, according to the commenter, EPA
merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The
commenter said that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's
argument boils down to the generic and conclusory claim that it
generally views title V requirements as unnecessary. The commenter
stated that, while this may be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view
when Congress enacted title V, and a general view that title V is
unnecessary does not suffice to show that title V compliance is
unnecessarily burdensome.
    Response: The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test
for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable one. To the
extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth factor
is flawed, we

disagree. The fourth factor involves a determination as to whether
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the rule without relying on the
title V permits. In discussing the fourth factor in the proposal, EPA
states that prior to delegating implementation and enforcement to a
State, EPA must ensure that the State has programs in place to enforce
the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be sufficient to assure
compliance with the rule. EPA also retains authority to enforce this
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. EPA also noted
other factors in the proposal that together are sufficient to assure
compliance with this area source.
    The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt these area sources from
title V permitting requirements because ``[t]he agency does not
identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with
respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area
source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V
compliance is unnecessary'' (emphasis added). As an initial matter, EPA
cannot exempt major sources from title V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a).
As for area sources, the standard that the commenter proposes--that EPA
must show that ``title V compliance is unnecessary''--is not consistent
with the standard the Agency established in the Exemption Rule and
applied in the proposed rule in determining if title V requirements are
unnecessarily burdensome for the three source categories at issue.
    Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the three
area source foundry categories from title V requirements is generally
applicable to any source category. As explained in the proposal
preamble and above, we balanced the four factors considering the facts
and circumstances of the three source categories at issue in this rule.
For example, in assessing whether the costs of requiring the sources to
obtain a title V permit was burdensome, we concluded that because
greater than 90 percent of the sources did not have a title V permit,
the costs imposed on the source categories were significant compared to
the additional compliance benefits offered by the title V permitting
process.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the legislative history of the
CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA to exempt source categories
from compliance with title V unless doing so would not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment. See 74 FR 6522.
Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does not make any showing
that its exemptions would not have adverse impacts on health, welfare
and the environment. The commenter stated that, instead, EPA offered
only the conclusory assertion that ``the level of control would remain
the same'' whether title V permits are required or not (74 FR 6522).
The commenter continued by stating that EPA relied entirely on the
conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that compliance
with title V would not yield additional compliance with the underlying
NESHAP. The commenter stated that those arguments are wrong for the
reasons given above, and therefore EPA's claims about public health,
welfare and the environment are wrong too. The commenter also stated
that Congress enacted title V for a reason: to assure compliance with
all applicable requirements and to empower citizens to get information
and enforce the CAA. The commenter said that those benefits--of which
EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--would improve compliance with
the underlying standards and thus have benefits for public health,
welfare and the environment. According to the commenter, EPA has not
demonstrated that these benefits are unnecessary with respect to any
specific source category, but again simply rests on its own apparent
belief that they are never necessary. The commenter concluded that, for
the reasons given above, the attempt to substitute EPA's judgment for
Congress' is unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion,
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA
section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications for
exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome'', as requiring
consideration of the four factors discussed above. EPA applied these
four factors to the three foundry area source categories subject to
this rule and concluded that requiring title V for these area source
categories would be unnecessarily burdensome.
    In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily
burdensome on the area source categories for which we proposed
exemptions, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered whether
exempting the area source categories would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. As explained in the proposal
preamble, we concluded that exempting the area source categories at
issue in this rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare or
the environment because the level of control would be the same even if
title V applied. We further explained in the proposal preamble that the
title V permit program does not generally impose new substantive air
quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that
certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to
determining compliance with applicable requirements. The commenter has
not provided any information that exemption of these area source
categories from title V will adversely affect public health, welfare or
the environment.

I. Miscellaneous

    Comment: One commenter stated that in order for these rules to be
implemented properly, EPA should provide sufficient additional funds to
State and local clean air agencies. The commenter said that in recent
years, Federal grants for State and local air programs have amounted to
only about one-third of what they should be, and budget requests for
the last two years have called for additional cuts. According to the
commenter, additional area source programs, which are not eligible for
title V fees, will require significant increases in resources for State
and local air agencies beyond what is currently provided. The commenter
claims that without increased funding, some State and local air
agencies may not be able to adopt and enforce additional area source
rules.
    Response: State and local air programs are an important and
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these
programs; however, we do not believe that this issue can be addressed
through today's rulemaking.
    EPA today is promulgating standards for the Aluminum, Copper, and
Other Nonferrous Foundries area source categories that reflect what
constitutes GACT for the Urban HAP for which the source categories were
listed. GACT standards are technology-based standards. The level of
State and local resources needed to implement these rules is not a
factor that we consider in determining what constitutes GACT.
    Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through today's
rulemaking for

the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to working with State
and local agencies to implement this rule. State and local agencies
that receive grants for continuing air programs under CAA section 105
should work with their project officer to determine what resources are
necessary to implement and enforce the area source standards. EPA will
continue to provide the resources appropriated for section 105 grants
consistent with the statute and the allotment formula developed
pursuant to the statute.
    Comment: One commenter noticed that EPA includes beryllium in the
metal HAP list for the aluminum foundries but not for copper foundries.
Due to beryllium's toxicity, the commenter suggests that beryllium also
be added to the copper foundries metal HAP list.
    Response: The copper foundries HAP list was based on the 112(k)
listing that identified the selected pollutants for each source
category. Beryllium was not included in the 112(k) listing for copper
foundries, and we are not aware of any copper foundries reporting
emissions of beryllium.
    Comment: One commenter stated the preamble language was not
accurate in the discussion of some copper-based alloys, such as leaded
brass, containing up to 3.5 percent lead. The commenter stated many
leaded alloys contain more lead than that. The commenter said that
``red brass'' is very common and contains 7 to 8 percent lead, and
various industry metal specifications list some types of lead
containing alloys up to 27 percent lead.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's information and technical
update, and we acknowledge that the provided information is correct.
    Comment: One commenter noted what appears to be a typo within
section 63.11552(d) of the proposed rule. The reference to sources
subject to ``63.11551(b)'' should actually be sources subject to
``63.11550(b).''
    Response: We agree with the commenter and made the suggested
correction to the final rule.

VII. Impacts of the Final Standards

    Existing aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries are
currently well controlled, and our final GACT determination reflects
such controls. Compared to 1990, when the baseline emissions were
established, these sources have improved their level of control and
reduced emissions due to State permitting requirements, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (particularly for
lead), and actions taken to improve efficiency and reduce costs. We
estimate that the only impacts associated with the final rule are the
compliance requirements (i.e., monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping,
and testing).
    Approximately 318 aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries
are subject to the final rule and will incur initial one-time costs of
$656,000 and a total annualized cost of $638,000/yr (an average of
$2,000/yr per plant). The one-time (``first'') costs are for initial
notifications; preparing the management practices plan and startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan; and initial performance tests.
Recurring annual costs include those for maintaining records and daily
visual inspections of fabric filters.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is
therefore subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2332.02.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the information collection requirements in EPA's NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant
to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than
emissions data submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This final NESHAP requires applicable one-time notifications
according to the NESHAP General Provisions. Plant owners or operators
are required to prepare and operate by written management practice
plans and include compliance certifications for the management
practices in their Notifications of Compliance Status. Foundries
subject to the emission standards are required to conduct daily VE
observations with a reduction to weekly VE observations if VE are not
detected after 30 consecutive days of daily observations. Recordkeeping
is required to demonstrate compliance with management practices,
monitoring, and applicability provisions. The affected facilities are
expected to already have the necessary control and monitoring equipment
in place and to already conduct much of the required monitoring and
recordkeeping activities. Foundries subject to the rule also are
required to comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plans/reports and to submit a compliance report if a
deviation occurred during the semiannual reporting period.
    The average annual burden for this information collection averaged
over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 7,160 labor
hours per year at a cost of approximately $408,855 for the 318
facilities that would be subject to the final rule, or approximately 68
hours per year per facility. No capital/startup costs or operation and
maintenance costs are associated with the final rule information
collection requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new
area source foundries because none is projected for the next 3 years.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection
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 the final area source
NESHAP on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business whose parent company meets the Small Business Administration
size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than
500 for aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries); (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 that
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There will
not be any significant impacts on new or existing aluminum, copper, or
other nonferrous foundries because this final rule will not create any
new requirements or burdens other than minimal compliance requirements.
This final rule is estimated to impact 318 (of more than 962) area
source facilities, 307 of which are small entities. The analysis shows
that none of the small entities will incur economic impacts exceeding 1
percent of its revenue. We have determined that small entity compliance
costs are expected to be less than 0.05 percent of company sales
revenue for all affected plants. Although this final rule will contain
requirements for new area sources, EPA does not expect any new
aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous foundries to be constructed in
the foreseeable future; therefore, EPA did not estimate the impacts for
new affected sources.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the industry. The standards also require only the essential monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting needed to verify compliance. The final
standards were developed based on information obtained from small
businesses in our surveys, consultation with small business
representatives, and consultation with industry representatives that
are affiliated with small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one
year. This final rule is not expected to impact State, local, or Tribal
governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this final rule for
affected industrial sources is $638,000/yr. Thus, this final rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
will not apply to such governments and will not impose any 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.''
    This final rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule does not impose
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this final rule.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule
imposes no requirements on Tribal governments; thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this final rule
will not likely have any significant adverse energy effects because no
additional pollution controls or other equipment that consume energy
would be required.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (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. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its
manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the
exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990.
    EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 17. Although the Agency has identified 11
VCS as being potentially applicable to these methods cited in this
rule, we have decided not to use these standards in this rulemaking.
The use of these VCS would have been impractical because

they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule.
The search and review results are in the docket for this rule.
    Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the
General Provisions, 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 in the final rule and amendments.

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

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

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 this final
rule 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 this final rule 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). This final rule will be effective on June 25, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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 revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii),
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3),
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2),
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii)
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii),
63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, and table
1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part.
* * * * *

0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZZZ to read as follows:
Subpart ZZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other
Nonferrous Foundries

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11544 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11545 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11550 What are my standards and management practices?
63.11551 What are my initial compliance requirements?
63.11552 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.11553 What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11555 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11556 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11557 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11558 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries Area
Sources

Subpart ZZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other
Nonferrous Foundries

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.11544  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
aluminum foundry, copper foundry, or other nonferrous foundry as
defined in Sec.  63.11556, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?''
that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions as
defined in Sec.  63.2 and meets the criteria specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section. Once you are subject to this
subpart, you must remain subject to this subpart even if you
subsequently do not meet the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
of this section.
    (1) Your aluminum foundry uses materials containing one or more
aluminum foundry HAP as defined in Sec.  63.11556, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart?''; or
    (2) Your copper foundry uses materials containing one or more
copper foundry HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.11556, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart?''; or
    (3) Your other nonferrous foundry uses materials containing one or
more other nonferrous foundry HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.11556, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?''; and
    (4) Your aluminum foundry, copper foundry, or other nonferrous
foundry has an annual metal melt production (for existing affected
sources) or an annual metal melt capacity (for new affected sources) of
at least 600 tons per year (tpy) of aluminum, copper, and other
nonferrous metals, including all associated alloys. You must determine
the annual metal melt production and capacity for the time period as
described in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section. The
quantity of ferrous metals melted in iron or steel melting operations
and the quantity of nonferrous metal melted in non-foundry melting
operations are not included in determining the annual metal melt
production for existing affected sources or the annual metal melt
capacity for new affected sources.

    (i) If you own or operate a melting operation at an aluminum,
copper or other nonferrous foundry as of February 9, 2009, you must
determine if you are subject to this rule based on your facility's
annual metal melt production for calendar year 2010.
    (ii) If you construct or reconstruct a melting operation at an
aluminum, copper or other nonferrous foundry after February 9, 2009,
you must determine if you are subject to this rule based on your
facility's annual metal melt capacity at startup.
    (iii) If your foundry with an existing melting operation increases
production after calendar year 2010 such that the annual metal melt
production equals or exceeds 600 tpy, you must submit a written
notification of applicability to the Administrator within 30 days after
the end of the calendar year and comply within 2 years after the date
of the notification.
    (iv) If your foundry with a new melting operation increases
capacity after startup such that the annual metal melt capacity equals
or exceeds 600 tpy, you must submit a written notification of
applicability to the Administrator within 30 days after the capacity
increase year and comply at the time of the capacity increase.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source
located at an aluminum, copper or other nonferrous foundry that is an
area source as defined by Sec.  63.2. The affected source is the
collection of all melting operations located at an aluminum, copper, or
other nonferrous foundry.
    (c) An affected source is an existing source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before
February 9, 2009.
    (d) An affected source is a new source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source after February 9,
2009.
    (e) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
    (f) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a) for a reason
other than your status as an area source under this subpart.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources.

Sec.  63.11545  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart no
later than June 27, 2011.
    (b) If you start up a new affected source on or before June 25,
2009, you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart
no later than June 25, 2009.
    (c) If you start up a new affected source after June 25, 2009, you
must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11550  What are my standards and management practices?

    (a) If you own or operate new or existing affected sources at an
aluminum foundry, copper foundry, or other nonferrous foundry that is
subject to this subpart, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Cover or enclose each melting furnace that is equipped with a
cover or enclosure during the melting operation to the extent
practicable (e.g., except when access is needed; including, but not
limited to charging, alloy addition, and tapping).
    (2) Purchase only metal scrap that has been depleted (to the extent
practicable) of aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP, or other
nonferrous foundry HAP (as applicable) in the materials charged to the
melting furnace, except metal scrap that is purchased specifically for
its HAP metal content for use in alloying or to meet specifications for
the casting. This requirement does not apply to material that is not
scrap (e.g., ingots, alloys, sows) or to materials that are not
purchased (e.g., internal scrap, customer returns).
    (3) Prepare and operate pursuant to a written management practices
plan. The management practices plan must include the required
management practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section and
may include any other management practices that are implemented at the
facility to minimize emissions from melting furnaces. You must inform
your appropriate employees of the management practices that they must
follow. You may use your standard operating procedures as the
management practices plan provided the standard operating procedures
include the required management practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)
of this section.
    (b) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that is
located at a large foundry as defined in Sec.  63.11556, you must
comply with the additional requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of
this section.
    (1) For existing affected sources located at a large foundry, you
must achieve a particulate matter (PM) control efficiency of at least
95.0 percent or emit no more than an outlet PM concentration limit of
0.034 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.015 grains per dry
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf)).
    (2) For new affected sources located at a large foundry, you must
achieve a PM control efficiency of at least 99.0 percent or emit no
more than an outlet PM concentration limit of at most 0.023 g/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf).
    (c) If you own or operate an affected source at a small foundry
that subsequently becomes a large foundry after the applicable
compliance date, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must notify the Administrator within 30 days after the
capacity increase or the production increase, whichever is appropriate;
    (2) You must modify any applicable permit limits within 30 days
after the capacity increase or the production increase to reflect the
current production or capacity, if not done so prior to the increase;
    (3) You must comply with the PM control requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section no later than 2 years from the date of issuance of
the permit for the capacity increase or production increase, or in the
case of no permit issuance, the date of the increase in capacity or
production, whichever occurs first.
    (d) These standards apply at all times.

Sec.  63.11551  What are my initial compliance requirements?

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you must
conduct a performance test for existing and new sources at a large
copper or other nonferrous foundry that is subject to Sec.
63.11550(b). You must conduct the test within 180 days of your
compliance date and report the results in your Notification of
Compliance Status according to Sec.  63.9(h).
    (b) If you own or operate an existing affected source at a large
copper or other nonferrous foundry that is subject to Sec.
63.11550(b), you are not required to conduct a performance test if a
prior performance test was conducted within the past 5 years of the
compliance date using the same methods specified in paragraph (c) of
this section and you meet either of the following two conditions:

    (1) No process changes have been made since the test; or
    (2) You demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting authority
that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments,
reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test according to the
requirements in Sec.  63.7 and the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must determine the concentration of PM (for the
concentration standard) or the mass rate of PM in pounds per hour at
the inlet and outlet of the control device (for the percent reduction
standard) according to the following test methods:
    (i) Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1) to select
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack
or duct. If you are complying with the concentration provision in Sec.
63.11550(b), sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. If you are
complying with the percent reduction provision in Sec.  63.11550(b),
sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of the control
device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1), or
Method 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. You may use ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (iv) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) to determine the
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) or Method 17 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A-6) to determine the concentration of PM or mass
rate of PM (front half filterable catch only). If you choose to comply
with the percent reduction PM standard, you must determine the mass
rate of PM at the inlet and outlet in pounds per hour and calculate the
percent reduction in PM.
    (2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance
test. Each run must cover at least one production cycle (charging,
melting, and tapping).
    (3) For a source with a single control device exhausted through
multiple stacks, you must ensure that three runs are performed by a
representative sampling of the stacks satisfactory to the Administrator
or his or her delegated representative. You must provide data or an
adequate explanation why the stack(s) chosen for testing are
representative.

Sec.  63.11552  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) You must record the information specified in Sec.
63.11553(c)(2) to document conformance with the management practices
plan required in Sec.  63.11550(a).
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, if you
own or operate an existing affected source at a large foundry, you must
conduct visible emissions monitoring according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct visual monitoring of the fabric filter
discharge point(s) (outlets) for any VE according to the schedule
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must perform a visual determination of emissions once per
day, on each day the process is in operation, during melting
operations.
    (ii) If no VE are detected in consecutive daily visual monitoring
performed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for 30
consecutive days or more of operation of the process, you may decrease
the frequency of visual monitoring to once per calendar week of time
the process is in operation, during melting operations. If VE are
detected during these inspections, you must resume daily visual
monitoring of that operation during each day that the process is in
operation, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section until
you satisfy the criteria of this section to resume conducting weekly
visual monitoring.
    (2) If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you
must initiate procedures to determine the cause of the emissions within
1 hour of the initial observation and alleviate the cause of the
emissions within 3 hours of initial observation by taking whatever
corrective action(s) are necessary. You may take more than 3 hours to
alleviate a specific condition that causes VE if you identify in the
monitoring plan this specific condition as one that could lead to VE in
advance, you adequately explain why it is not feasible to alleviate
this condition within 3 hours of the time the VE occurs, and you
demonstrate that the requested time will ensure alleviation of this
condition as expeditiously as practicable.
    (3) As an alternative to the monitoring requirements for an
existing affected source in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section,
you may install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for
each fabric filter according to the requirements in paragraph (c) of
this section.
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source located at a large
foundry subject to the PM requirements in Sec.  63.11550(b)(2) that is
equipped with a fabric filter, you must install, operate, and maintain
a bag leak detection system for each fabric filter according to
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 1 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings. You must continuously record the output from the
bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e.g., using
a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm
set points, and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the averaging
period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the
Administrator or delegated authority, except as provided in paragraph
(c)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of
the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

    (2) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain each bag leak
detection system according to the plan at all times. Each monitoring
plan must describe the items in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of
this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point and alarm delay time will be
established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained,
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored; and
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, you
must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm from a
bag leak detection system within 1 hour of the alarm and alleviate the
cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever
corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but
are not limited to, the following:
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
PM emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (4) You may take more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific
condition that causes an alarm if you identify in the monitoring plan
this specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately
explain why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrate that the requested
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as
practicable.
    (d) If you use a control device other than a fabric filter for new
or existing affected sources subject to Sec.  63.11550(b), you must
submit a request to use an alternative monitoring procedure as required
in Sec.  63.8(f)(4).

Sec.  63.11553  What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

    (a) You must submit the Initial Notification required by Sec.
63.9(b)(2) no later than 120 calendar days after June 25, 2009 or
within 120 days after the source becomes subject to the standard. The
Initial Notification must include the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section and may be combined with
the Notification of Compliance Status required in paragraph (b) of this
section.
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator;
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source;
and
    (3) An identification of the relevant standard, or other
requirement, that is the basis of the notification and source's
compliance date.
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status required
by Sec.  63.9(h) no later than 120 days after the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec.  63.11545 unless you must conduct a performance
test. If you must conduct a performance test, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status within 60 days of completing the
performance test. Your Notification of Compliance Status must indicate
if you are a small or large foundry as defined in Sec.  63.11556, the
production amounts as the basis for the determination, and if you are a
large foundry, whether you elect to comply with the control efficiency
requirement or PM concentration limit in Sec.  63.11550(b). In addition
to the information required in Sec.  63.9(h)(2) and Sec.  63.11551,
your notification must include the following certification(s) of
compliance, as applicable, and signed by a responsible official:
    (1) ``This facility will operate in a manner that minimizes HAP
emissions from the melting operations to the extent possible. This
includes at a minimum that the owners and/or operators of the affected
source will cover or enclose each melting furnace that is equipped with
a cover or enclosure during melting operations to the extent
practicable as required in 63.11550(a)(1).''
    (2) ``This facility agrees to purchase only metal scrap that has
been depleted (to the extent practicable) of aluminum foundry HAP,
copper foundry HAP, or other nonferrous foundries HAP (as applicable)
in the materials charged to the melting furnace, except for metal scrap
that is purchased specifically for its HAP metal content for use in
alloying or to meet specifications for the casting as required by
63.11550(a)(2).''
    (3) ``This facility has prepared and will operate by a written
management practices plan according to Sec.  63.11550(a)(3).''
    (4) If the owner or operator of an existing affected source at a
large foundry is certifying compliance based on the results of a
previous performance test: ``This facility complies with Sec.
63.11550(b) based on a previous performance test in accordance with
Sec.  63.11551(b).''
    (4) This certification of compliance is required by the owner or
operator that installs bag leak detection systems: ``This facility has
installed a bag leak detection system in accordance with Sec.
63.11552(b)(3) or (c), has prepared a bag leak detection system
monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.  63.11552(c), and will operate
each bag leak detection system according to the plan.''
    (c) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) of this section.
    (1) As required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of
each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart and
all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification
of Compliance Status that you submitted.
    (2) You must keep records to document conformance with the
management practices plan required by Sec.  63.11550 as specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) For melting furnaces equipped with a cover or enclosure,
records must identify each melting furnace equipped with a cover or
enclosure and document that the procedures in the management practices
plan were followed during the monthly inspections. These records may be
in the form of a checklist.
    (ii) Records documenting that you purchased only metal scrap that
has been depleted of HAP metals (to the extent practicable) charged to
the melting furnace. If you purchase scrap metal specifically for the
HAP metal content for use in alloying or to meet specifications for the
casting, you must keep records to document that the HAP metal is
included in the material specifications for the cast metal product.
    (3) You must keep the records of all performance tests, inspections
and monitoring data required by Sec. Sec.  63.11551 and 63.11552, and
the information identified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (vi) of this
section for each required inspection or monitoring.
    (i) The date, place, and time of the monitoring event;
    (ii) Person conducting the monitoring;
    (iii) Technique or method used;
    (iv) Operating conditions during the activity;

    (v) Results, including the date, time, and duration of the period
from the time the monitoring indicated a problem (e.g., VE) to the time
that monitoring indicated proper operation; and
    (vi) Maintenance or corrective action taken (if applicable).
    (4) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source at a
small foundry that is not subject to Sec.  63.11550(b), you must
maintain records to document that your facility melts less than 6,000
tpy total of copper, other nonferrous metal, and all associated alloys
(excluding aluminum) in each calendar year.
    (5) If you use a bag leak detection system, you must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings.
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms,
and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed.
    (d) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). As specified in
Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the
date of each recorded action. For records of annual metal melt
production, you must keep the records for 5 years from the end of the
calendar year. You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years
after the date of each recorded action according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
    (e) If a deviation occurs during a semiannual reporting period, you
must submit a compliance report to your permitting authority according
to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The first reporting period covers the period beginning on the
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.11545 and ending on June 30 or
December 31, whichever date comes first after your compliance date.
Each subsequent reporting period covers the semiannual period from
January 1 through June 30 or from July 1 through December 31. Your
compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31
or January 31, whichever date comes first after the end of the
semiannual reporting period.
    (2) A compliance report must include the information in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy and completeness
of the content of the report.
    (iii) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
    (iv) Identification of the affected source, the pollutant being
monitored, applicable requirement, description of deviation, and
corrective action taken.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.11555  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

Sec.  63.11556  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Aluminum foundry means a facility that melts aluminum and pours
molten aluminum into molds to manufacture aluminum castings (except die
casting) that are complex shapes. For purposes of this subpart, this
definition does not include primary or secondary metal producers that
cast molten aluminum to produce simple shapes such as sows, ingots,
bars, rods, or billets.
    Aluminum foundry HAP means any compound of the following metals:
beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, or nickel, or any of these metals
in the elemental form.
    Annual copper and other nonferrous foundry metal melt capacity
means, for new affected sources, the lower of the copper and other
nonferrous metal melting operation capacity, assuming 8,760 operating
hours per year or, if applicable, the maximum permitted copper and
other nonferrous metal melting operation production rate for the
melting operation calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise
specified in the permit, permitted copper and other nonferrous metal
melting operation rates that are not specified on an annual basis must
be annualized assuming 24 hours per day, 365 days per year of
operation. If the permit limits the operating hours of the melting
operation(s) or foundry, then the permitted operating hours are used to
annualize the maximum permitted copper and other nonferrous metal melt
production rate. The annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt
capacity does not include the melt capacity for ferrous metal melted in
iron or steel foundry melting operations that are co-located with
copper or other nonferrous melting operations or the nonferrous metal
melted in non-foundry melting operations.
    Annual copper and other nonferrous foundry metal melt production
means, for existing affected sources, the quantity of copper and other
nonferrous metal melted in melting operations at the foundry in a given
calendar year. For the purposes of this subpart, metal melt production
is determined on the basis of the quantity of metal charged to the
melting operations. The annual copper and nonferrous metal melt
production does not include the melt production of ferrous metal melted
in iron or steel foundry melting operations that are co-located with
copper and other nonferrous melting operations or the nonferrous metal
melted in non-foundry melting operations.
    Annual metal melt capacity, for new affected sources, means the
lower of the aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metal melting
operation capacity, assuming 8,760 operating hours per year or, if
applicable, the maximum permitted aluminum, copper, and other
nonferrous metal melting operation production rate for the melting
operation calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise specified in
the permit, permitted aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metal
melting operation rates that are not specified on an annual basis must
be annualized assuming 24 hours per day, 365 days per year of
operation. If the permit limits the operating hours of the melting
operation(s) or foundry, then the permitted operating hours are used to
annualize the maximum permitted aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous
metal melt production rate. The annual metal melt capacity does not
include the melt capacity for ferrous metal melted in iron or steel
foundry melting operations that are co-located with aluminum, copper,
or other nonferrous melting operations or the nonferrous metal melted
in non-foundry melting operations.
    Annual metal melt production means, for existing affected sources,
the quantity of aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metal melted in
melting operations at the foundry in a given calendar year. For the
purposes of this subpart, annual metal melt production is determined on
the basis of the quantity of metal charged to the melting operations.
The annual metal melt production does not include the melt production
of ferrous metal melted in iron or steel foundry melting operations
that are co-located with

aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous melting operations or the
nonferrous metal melted in non-foundry melting operations.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative PM (i.e., dust) loadings in the
exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A
bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an
instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light
transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative PM
loadings.
    Copper foundry means a foundry that melts copper or copper-based
alloys and pours molten copper or copper-based alloys into molds to
manufacture copper or copper-based alloy castings (excluding die
casting) that are complex shapes. For purposes of this subpart, this
definition does not include primary or secondary metal producers that
cast molten copper to produce simple shapes such as sows, ingots,
billets, bars, anode copper, rods, or copper cake.
    Copper foundry HAP means any compound of any of the following
metals: lead, manganese, or nickel, or any of these metals in the
elemental form.
    Deviation means any instance where an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or work
practice standard;
    (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 affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Die casting means operations classified under the North American
Industry Classification System codes 331521 (Aluminum Die-Casting
Foundries) and 331522 (Nonferrous (except Aluminum) Die-Casting
Foundries) and comprises establishments primarily engaged in
introducing molten aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metal, under
high pressure, into molds or dies to make die-castings.
    Large foundry means, for an existing affected source, a copper or
other nonferrous foundry with an annual metal melt production of
copper, other nonferrous metals, and all associated alloys (excluding
aluminum) of 6,000 tons or greater. For a new affected source, large
foundry means a copper or other nonferrous foundry with an annual metal
melt capacity of copper, other nonferrous metals, and all associated
alloys (excluding aluminum) of 6,000 tons or greater.
    Material containing aluminum foundry HAP means a material
containing one or more aluminum foundry HAP. Any material that contains
beryllium, cadmium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or contains manganese in amounts
greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal), as shown
in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as
the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material, is considered to be a
material containing aluminum foundry HAP.
    Material containing copper foundry HAP means a material containing
one or more copper foundry HAP. Any material that contains lead or
nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as
the metal), or contains manganese in amounts greater than or equal to
1.0 percent by weight (as the metal), as shown in formulation data
provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety
Data Sheet for the material, is considered to be a material containing
copper foundry HAP.
    Material containing other nonferrous foundry HAP means a material
containing one or more other nonferrous foundry HAP. Any material that
contains chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), as shown in formulation data
provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety
Data Sheet for the material, is considered to be a material containing
other nonferrous foundry HAP.
    Melting operations (the affected source) means the collection of
furnaces (e.g., induction, reverberatory, crucible, tower, dry hearth)
used to melt metal ingot, alloyed ingot and/or metal scrap to produce
molten metal that is poured into molds to make castings. Melting
operations dedicated to melting ferrous metal at an iron and steel
foundry are not included in this definition and are not part of the
affected source.
    Other nonferrous foundry means a facility that melts nonferrous
metals other than aluminum, copper, or copper-based alloys and pours
the nonferrous metals into molds to manufacture nonferrous metal
castings (excluding die casting) that are complex shapes. For purposes
of this subpart, this definition does not include primary or secondary
metal producers that cast molten nonferrous metals to produce simple
shapes such as sows, ingots, bars, rods, or billets.
    Other nonferrous foundry HAP means any compound of the following
metals: chromium, lead, and nickel, or any of these metals in the
elemental form.
    Small foundry means, for an existing affected source, a copper or
other nonferrous foundry with an annual metal melt production of
copper, other nonferrous metals, and all associated alloys (excluding
aluminum) of less than 6,000 tons. For a new affected source, small
foundry means a copper or other nonferrous foundry with an annual metal
melt capacity of copper, other nonferrous metals, and all associated
alloys (excluding aluminum) of less than 6,000 tons.

Sec.  63.11557  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or
a delegated authority, such as your State, local, or Tribal agency. If
the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State,
local, or Tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA
Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State,
local, or Tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or Tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
Tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in
Sec.  63.11544, the compliance date requirements in Sec.  63.11545, and
the applicable standards in Sec.  63.11550.
    (2) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (3) Approval of a major change to a test method under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec.  63.90(a).
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90(a).
    (5) Approval of a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements

under Sec.  63.10(f), or another major change to recordkeeping/
reporting. A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined in
Sec.  63.90(a).

Sec.  63.11558  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63

    Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries Area
Sources
    As required in Sec.  63.11555, ``What General Provisions apply to
this subpart?,'' you must comply with each requirement in the following
table that applies to you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to subpart
             Citation                         Subject                  ZZZZZZ?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),  Applicability.............  Yes..................  Sec.   63.11544(f)
 (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12),                                                       exempts affected sources
 (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2),                                                        from the obligation to
 (c)(5), (e).                                                                           obtain a title V
                                                                                operating permit.
Sec.   63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9),   Reserved..................  No...................
 (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions...............  Yes..................
Sec.   63.3.......................  Units and Abbreviations...  Yes..................
Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited Activities and   Yes..................
                                     Circumvention.
Sec.   63.5.......................  Preconstruction Review and  Yes..................
                                     Notification Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5),      Compliance with Standards   Yes..................
 (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),     and Maintenance
 (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-     Requirements.
 (e)(3)(ix), (f)(2), (f)(3), (g),
 (i), (j).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  Compliance with Nonopacity  No...................  Subpart ZZZZZZ requires
                                     Emission Standards.                                continuous compliance
                                                                                with all requirements in
                                                                                this subpart.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(5)-  Compliance with Opacity     No...................  Subpart ZZZZZZ does not
 (h)(9).                             and Visible Emission                               contain opacity or
                                     Limits.                                            visible emission limits.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4),  Reserved..................  No...................
 (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
 (h)(5)(iv).
Sec.   63.7.......................  Applicability and           Yes..................
                                     Performance Test Dates.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1), (b)(1), (f)(1)-  Monitoring Requirements...  Yes..................
 (5), (g).
Sec.   63.8(a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(2)-  Continuous Monitoring       No...................  Subpart ZZZZZZ does not
 (3), (c), (d), (e), (f)(6), (g).    Systems.                                           require a flare or CPMS,
                                                                                COMS or CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved]................  No...................
Sec.   63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-  Notification Requirements.  Yes..................  Subpart ZZZZZZ requires
 (iii), (b)(5), (c), (d), (e),                                                          submission of
 (h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6),                                                         Notification of
 (j).                                                                                Compliance Status within
                                                                                120 days of compliance
                                                                                date unless a
                                                                                performance test is
                                                                                required.
Sec.   63.9(b)(2)(iv)-(v), (b)(4),  ..........................  No...................
 (f), (g), (i).
Sec.   63.9(b)(3), (h)(4).........  Reserved..................  No...................
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)- Recordkeeping and           Yes..................
 (v), (vii), (vii)(C), (viii),       Reporting Requirements.
 (ix), (b)(3), (d)(1)-(2), (d)(4),
 (d)(5), (f).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi),             ..........................  No...................  Subpart ZZZZZZ does not
 (b)(2)(vii)(A)-(B), (c), (d)(3),                                                       require a CPMS, COMS,
 (e).                                                                                CEMS, or opacity or
                                                                                visible emissions limit.
Sec.   63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9).  Reserved..................  No...................
Sec.   63.11......................  Control Device              No...................
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.12......................  State Authority and         Yes..................
                                     Delegations.
Sec.  Sec.   63.13-63.16..........  Addresses, Incorporations   Yes..................
                                     by Reference,
                                     Availability of
                                     Information, Performance
                                     Track Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-14613 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P