instead of (c)(4) as the commenter noted.  There are five
non-transferable authorities in this final rule that cover the emissions
limits, opacity limit, monitoring, test methods, and
recordkeeping/reporting requirements.  We have also revised the proposed
rule to specifically reserve EPA’s authority for review and approval
of local, State, or national mercury switch removal programs.  The
proposed EAF rule should have cited the emissions limit and opacity
limit as well as the monitoring, test methods, and
recordkeeping/reporting requirements.  We will revise the proposed EAF
rule to show five non-transferable authorities instead of three and to
reserve authority for approval of local, State, or national mercury
switch removal programs.

E.  Definitions

	Comment:  One commenter recommended that EPA include a definition of
“total metal HAP” as provided in the amendments to the major source
foundry rule currently under development.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter’s suggestion and have revised
the proposed rule accordingly.

	Comment:  One cHAPhh

ommenter said that the rule should define “fugitive emissions” as in
the foundry MACT standard, but further clarify that fugitive emissions
do not include emissions that stay within the building as follows:
“Fugitive emissions is a drifting emission that exits a building in a
manner other than though a collected or uncollected, powered exhaust
fan/vent.”

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that “fugitive emissions”
should be defined and we have added a definition of “fugitive
emissions” commensurate with the one used in the major source foundry
MACT standards.  We disagree that fugitive emissions excludes
uncollected dust that is exhausted through general building ventilation
or roof fans.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the final rule should include a
definition for “scrap provider” that is the same as the definition
in the EAF rule with the recommended changes.  The commenter recommended
that the proposed definition of “scrap provider” in the EAF rule be
revised because the definition includes brokers who have no oversight
over scrap preparation and delivery.  According to the commenter, a
revised definition should allow brokers to considered “scrap
providers” as a contractual matter.  The commenter suggested that EPA
define “scrap provider” to mean “the final preparer of scrap
delivered to a steel mill, or a broker when a brokered transaction
specifies that the broker provide information to the steel mill from the
scrap processors participating in the brokered transaction.”

	Response:  We agree that the definition of “scrap provider” in the
EAF rule should be included in the final rule.  We disagree that the
proposed definition in the EAF rule should be revised because the
definition as proposed allows a broker to be considered a scrap
provider.  The foundry owner or operator must ensure that the broker
receives scrap only from suppliers participating in an EPA-approved
program or for the site-specific option, that the suppliers have removed
mercury switches and provide an accounting of the number of switches
removed and vehicles processed, along with all of the other requirements
in the site-specific plan.

	Comment:  One commenter recommended that the final rule include the
definition of “motor vehicle scrap” as revised to refer to shredded
scrap that contains shredded end-of-life vehicles.  The commenter
explained that shredded scrap typically includes shredded end-of-life or
obsolete appliances as well as other materials.  Alternatively, the
commenter suggested replacing the definition of “motor vehicle
scrap” with a definition of “shredded scrap”, which would contain
some fraction of shredded end-of-life vehicles.

	Response:  We agree that the definition of “motor vehicle scrap”
should be included in the final rule.  We have added the definition in
the EAF rule to this final rule.  The definition of “motor vehicle
scrap” is specific to vehicles processed in a shredder.  We do not see
a need to revise the definition as suggested by the commenter.

	Comment:  One commenter requested EPA to add the definition of
“nonferrous metal” in 40 CFR 471.02 of the effluent guidelines for
nonferrous metals forming and metal powders point source category.
Under 40 CFR 471.02(a), “nonferrous metal” is defined as “any pure
metal other than iron or any metal alloy for which a metal other than
iron is its major constituent in percent by weight.”  This definition
distinguishes the primary and secondary production of other metals or
alloys (which are covered by air emission standards for other source
categories) from the ferrous metals iron and steel.

	Response:  We added this definition of “nonferrous metal” to the
final rule except that we changed the phrase “a metal other than
iron” to “an element other than iron”.

Comment:  Two commenters recommended that EPA provide State and local
agencies with sufficient additional grants so that they may participate
in the implementation of additional area source rules.  According to the
commenters, Federal grants currently fall far short of what is needed to
support State and local agencies in carrying out their existing
responsibilities, and budget requests for the last 2 years have called
for additional cuts.  The commenters claimed that, without additional
funding, some State and local air agencies may not be able to adopt and
enforce additional area source rules.  One commenter further stated
that, even for permitting authorities that do not adopt these area
source rules, it is possible that these rules will increase their work
loads and resource needs.  The commenter stated that, for example,
synthetic minor permits (or Federally Enforceable State Operating
Permits) will need to incorporate all applicable requirements, including
area source standards.  Noting that the title V permit fee funds are not
available for these efforts, the commenter asserted that many State and
local air agencies do not have sufficient resources for these
responsibilities.

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 this
rulemaking.

In this rulemaking, EPA is promulgating standards for the Iron Foundries
and Steel Foundries area source categories that reflect the practices
currently in use by sources in these area source categories, and these
standards represent what constitutes GACT for these categories under
section 112(d)(5).  GACT standards are technology-based standards.  The
level of State and local resources needed to implement this rule is not
a factor that we consider in determining what constitutes GACT under
section 112(d)(5).  Moreover, we note that the commenters did not
challenge our proposed determination to exempt from title V the Iron
Foundries and Steel Foundries area source categories, although they did
recommend that the pollution prevention standard for mercury be
incorporated in title V permits.

Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through this 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.

F.  Impact Estimates

1.  Environmental Impacts

	Comment:  Fifteen commenters stated that the emission reductions that
can be achieved from uncontrolled EIFs are overestimated because EPA
used an unrepresentative emission factor.  Twelve commenters stated that
EPA should use “an already well-referenced PM emission factor that is
representative and technically defensible”.  One commenter recommended
that EPA use the current emission factor in AP-42 (0.9 lb/ton).  Another
commenter recommended basing the emission factor on data reported by
Shaw (1982).  Twelve of the commenters described the dataset as limited
and problematic as much of the data are not verifiable and one commenter
said that the baghouse catch data were suspect.

Response:  First, the impact assessment performed was to assess the
impacts of the EIFs that could not meet the PM or metal HAP emission
limit without a control device.  To develop an assessment of the
worst-case economic impacts, we assumed all EIFs would have to add a
control device.  In actuality, we do believe that a significant portion
(approximately one-half) of EIFs will be able to demonstrate compliance
with the 0.8 lb/ton PM emission limit or the alternative 0.06 lb/ton
metal HAP limit without installing additional controls.  We agree that
the EIFs that do meet this limit are “clean burning.”  However,
available data indicate that many EIFs may have PM emissions that
significantly exceed this limit.  The PM emission factor used previously
was developed to model the emission reductions and cost-effectiveness of
these reductions of the EIFs that could not meet the PM emission limit
as proposed.

In response to these comments, we reevaluated the data used to assess
the PM emission factor for EIFs.  We did identify a few “baghouse
catch” data that included operations other than EIF melting
operations, such as inoculation.  While we do expect that capture and
control systems will likely help to reduce PM emissions from
inoculation, inoculation emissions are primary magnesium which is not a
HAP metal.  As such, we do not expect that these PM will contribute
significantly to the total metal HAP emissions.  Therefore, we did
exclude these data although these PM emissions could be considered a
co-benefit of the proposed furnace emission controls.  We also included
the data from Shaw, as requested by one commenter, although these data
are provided only as secondary references, all of which are 30 years old
or more.  We also considered more recent Casting Emissions Reduction
Program (CERP) data.  The augmented data set supports the average
emission factor reported in AP-42, but also indicates that those EIFs
not able to meet the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit have an average emission
factor of 1.6 lb/ton.  The augmented data set and basic statistics for
the data set are provided in a memorandum to the docket.

Although this PM emission factor is 20 percent lower than the emission
factor used in developing the nationwide impacts for the proposed rule,
as stated previously, the second and major reason the PM reductions (as
well as the total control costs) were overstated in the impacts as
estimated for the proposed rule is that many EIF will be able to meet
the proposed rule without additional control requirements (or with the
installation of suppression controls only).  To develop a more realistic
assessment of the nationwide impacts, we performed a Monte Carlo
assessment.  Based on the emission data compiled as described
previously, a log-normal distribution was used with a mean of -0.25 and
standard deviation of 0.7.  This distribution leads to a median emission
factor of 0.8 lb/ton and an arithmetic average emission factor of 1.0
lb/ton, which agrees well with the AP-42 emission factor of 0.9 lb/ton.
By using the Monte Carlo analysis, we address both reasons the PM
emission reductions were overestimated at proposal.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA should use the default average
emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs used in developing the impact
estimates.  Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the default factor
used by EPA in the impacts analysis is too high and lower average
emission factors should be used for both the impacts analysis and the
default factor for emissions averaging.

Response:  We disagree with the commenter that the average emissions
factor for uncontrolled EIFs should be used as a default factor.  If we
allowed foundries to use the average emissions factor, then many of the
uncontrolled EIFs would have actual emissions higher than the assumed
emissions.  A default factor of 3 lb/ton of PM was selected at proposal
as an upper end estimate of the emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs.
Based on the expanded PM data set, a 3 lb/ton emissions factor
represents the 98th percentile of the distribution.  Using a 3 lb/ton PM
default emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs provides a very high
degree of assurance that an emissions averaging group meets the 0.8
lb/ton emission limit when not measuring the emissions from all
uncontrolled furnaces.  EPA believes that it is appropriate to use a
conservative figure for the default emissions factor, in part because
foundries have the option to establish an actual emissions rate by
testing.  However, EPA recognizes that using a 3 lb/ton emission factor
overestimates emissions from 98 percent of uncontrolled furnaces, and
believes that using an emissions factor based on a somewhat lower
percentile would reduce the burden of initial testing and still provide
adequate assurance that the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit is met for
multiple furnaces using emissions averaging.  Therefore, we have revised
the proposed rule to allow uncontrolled EIFs that are not equipped with
a capture system and have not been previously tested to assume an
uncontrolled emission factor of 2 lb/ton, which is approximately the
75th percentile.  If a lower emissions rate is needed for an
uncontrolled EIF in order for the emissions averaging group to meet the
emissions limit, the foundry has the option to test any uncontrolled EIF
and establish a measured emissions rate for use in the emissions
averaging equation.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA overstated HAP emission
reductions and did not fully take into consideration the different types
of melting furnaces and the variety of control equipment available.

Response:  Metal HAP emission reductions were overstated for the same
reasons that the PM emission reductions were overstated.  However, we
respectfully disagree with the commenter with respect to the types of
furnaces and controls.  The emission and cost impacts were performed on
a furnace specific basis, considering the type of control device
installed for each furnace.  We also evaluated certain design aspects of
the control system to assess which controls could or could not meet the
0.8 lb/ton PM emissions limit.

	Comment:  One commenter noted that some induction furnaces only tap
about one-third of the molten metal, and are never fully emptied except
to work on the EIF refractory.  The commenter said that these furnaces
can be sources of small quantities of emissions even when the unit is
not melting so that the control system would need to operate
continuously, even when the plant is not actively melting and that this
makes it difficult to know what the actual emissions are in terms of
tons metal melted as some of the emissions are not directly related to
production.

Response:  We disagree with the commenter.  For periods when the furnace
is idling, a suppression cover is all that is necessary to ensure
emissions are not released from the furnace.  The cover will also reduce
heat losses from the furnace, reducing overall electricity costs
(especially as compared to running the control system continuously).  We
acknowledge the difficulty in assessing the true emissions from these
sources, which is why the long-term baghouse data were considered to be
highly relevant in assessing the emission potential of EIFs.

2.  Cost Impacts

	Comment:  Sixteen commenters stated that EPA underestimated the costs
of the capture and control equipment needed to retrofit an existing
uncontrolled EIF with a control device.  One commenter noted that some
retrofits may require substantial furnace modifications, site
preparation, and business interruption, the costs of which were not
included in EPA’s estimates.  A third commenter stated that EPA had
previously concluded that a retrofit cost factor of 2.8 was appropriate
for an existing EIF.  Another commenter explained that business
interruption costs associated with a control system retrofit would
directly impact the economic viability of the foundry.

	Ten of the commenters stated that EPA’s cost estimates were
understated because more EIFs than those identified by EPA will need to
install controls to meet the proposed emission limits.

	One commenter stated that operating cost factors were supplied by
individual companies and that the labor included overhead and bags were
changed every 2 years.  This commenter also stated that the current cost
of capital equipment loans range from 7.5 to 9 percent, so annualizing
costs using 7 percent understates the annual cost for the capital
equipment.

	One commenter stated that the capital cost formula used by EPA is
reasonably accurate if their furnaces can be modified to use a close
capture system.  If not, the commenter estimated that 250,000 actual
cubic feet per meter (acfm) of gas would need to be collected (versus
40,000 acfm), which would increase the size of the cost of the baghouse
control system by nearly a factor of five.  The commenter also stated
that the operating cost formula used by EPA appeared to significantly
underestimate the on-going costs.  The commenter stated that EPA’s
estimate for melting 17,000 tpy production rate, operating costs of
$72,600 per year would be estimated while the commenter estimates the
cost for electricity and compressed air alone to be approximately
$103,000 per year for the 40,000 acfm system.  The commenter also noted
that additional costs of heating make-up air (to keep from drawing cold
air into the building) could increase operating costs by another
$100,000 per year and maintenance costs were estimated to be $15,000 per
year.  The commenter also noted that, based on the types of EIFs used at
their foundry, the emission controls would have to run 24 hours a day,
365 days per year because the furnaces always have molten metal in them.

Response:  First, while we have revised the cost impacts, we consider
that the control costs estimated for EIFs are likely to be biased high
because we assume the EIFs that cannot meet the 0.8 lb/ton PM emission
limit will install baghouse control device.  Other control systems, such
as wet scrubbers or ESPs are expected to be able to meet the metal
melting furnace emission limit for existing sources and typically at
less total cost compared to baghouse control systems.  For example, in
reviewing the costs submitted by one of the commenters, the design
performance of the baghouses were far greater than needed to comply with
the proposed rule (designed to meet 0.0035 gr/dscf).  Based on other
commenters, EPA’s estimate of the capital equipment cost for the
baghouse system is not understated.  Consequently, we did not revise the
capital cost estimate for the baghouse system itself as we expect these
capital cost estimates to already be conservatively high.

We do note that there may be additional retrofit costs for those
induction furnaces that do not have existing capture and control system,
although we do not agree that a retrofit factor of 2.8 is warranted or
appropriate.  We increased the capital costs needed to install a capture
system when one is not in-place.  At proposal, we estimated the cost of
the capture system as 15 percent of the cost of the baghouse system.
For this final rule, we estimated the cost of the capture system/furnace
modification as 40 percent of the cost of the baghouse system.  That is,
for a baghouse system projected to cost $1 million, capture
system/furnace modifications were estimated to cost an additional
$400,000.  We also substantially increased the projected cost of testing
the EIFs when no capture system is in-place.  For furnaces that already
have a capture system (but no controls), then just costs of the baghouse
system were attributed to the furnace.

In addition, based on our review of the comments, we adjusted and
increased the overall pressure drop through the system, which
significantly increased the projected electricity costs.  We also
changed the frequency of bag replacement from 4 years to 2 years.
Together with the additional capital costs, the control costs for EIFs
increased compared to the estimates at proposal.  However, we did not
include the higher costs reported by some of the commenters, such as
assuming bag replacement requiring a full-time person over a year to
replace the bags or utilizing labor rates reported to include overhead,
but then multiplying those rates by an overhead factor.

We disagree with the commenter that the control costs were
under-estimated because more EIFs would need to be controlled than were
estimated.  Although the database used does not include every area
source foundry in the country, we expect the existing database to
include a very high majority of the larger area source foundries.
Additionally, as noted in developing the emission impacts, we assumed
that every EIF that was in the database required controls.  As such, we
believe that we overestimated the nationwide control costs because many
existing EIFs are expected to meet the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit without
installing additional controls.  Furthermore, “missing” EIF from the
database impact both emission reductions and costs, so that the overall
cost-effectiveness projected for the rule will not be significantly
impacted if some EIFs are “missing” from the database.

Finally, we acknowledge that interest rates vary, but the 7 percent
annual interest rate is our best estimate for long-term cost of capital.

3.  Cost Effectiveness Impacts

	Comment:  Several commenters stated that the emission limits for metal
melting furnaces, and specifically for EIF, are not cost-effective.  One
commenter stated that the cost per ton of PM or metal HAP emissions
reduced is about four times higher than the EPA estimates due to the
combination of EPA’s overestimate of emission reductions and
underestimate of emission control costs.  Five commenters stated that
EPA did not propose controls for pouring because the cost to control
pouring ranged from $30,000 to $110,000 per ton of PM removed.  The
commenters said that because the commenters’ cost-effectiveness for
EIF controls are in this range, EPA should conclude that melting furnace
controls are also not cost-effective.  Another commenter recommended
that EPA re-evaluate the need to control area source melting furnaces.

	Two commenters stated that, if the appropriate emission factors and
compliance costs are used, the proposed rule is even less
cost-effective.  One commenter compared the cost effectiveness of the
proposed rule to the MACT standard for Industrial and Institutional
Boilers and Process Heaters, which was approximately $33,000 per ton of
HAP removed as further rationale demonstrating that the proposed rule is
not cost-effective.  Another commenter stated that, based on the cost
estimate, the rule is not cost-effective.  Using EPA’s emission factor
of 2 lbs/ton and assuming a PM emissions limit of 0.8 lbs/ton, the cost
of controlling EIFs at his facility is approximately $30,000 to $50,000
per ton of PM reduced, and these costs increase significantly if one
uses the emission factor reported in AP-42.  The commenter said that the
requirement for EIF controls for new units appeared to be reasonable,
but that the cost to control existing EIFs was unreasonable.

Response:  The commenters are mistaken – we did not reject emission
controls for pouring on the basis of cost effectiveness.  We stated
clearly at proposal (72 FR 52987) that we were not regulating pouring at
area source foundries for two reasons, and neither reason was cost
effectiveness.  We noted that the quantity of metal HAP in pouring
emissions is very small relative to the emissions from melting furnaces.
 Further, we explained there are technical difficulties in the capture
and control of pouring emissions because of the need to access the
molten metal during the pouring process.

We also disagree with the commenter’s estimate of cost effectiveness
of $30,000 to $50,000 per ton of PM for EIFs.  We have re-evaluated our
cost estimates, and based on our revised analysis for the final rule, we
estimate the cost effectiveness for PM as $13,000 per ton.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the GACT standard for EIFs was not
as cost-effective and was more stringent than the MACT standard for
EIFs.  The commenter also noted that the MACT standard reduced metal HAP
by 102 tpy compared to only 19 tpy for the GACT standard.

Response:  We developed the GACT standard for large area source
foundries (including EIFs) by assessing the technologies and management
practices that are generally available for large area source foundries.
We selected a format of “lb/ton” as the most appropriate format for
measuring emission control performance, and we concluded that 0.8 lb
PM/ton of metal charged (or 0.06 lb total metal HAP/ton of metal
charged), together with the pollution prevention management practices of
the rule, represent GACT for this subcategory.  In contrast, the MACT
standard of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) was based
on the emissions level achieved by the average of the top 12 percent of
major sources.  We disagree that the GACT standard for EIFs (0.8 lb/ton)
is more stringent than the MACT standard (0.005 gr/dscf).  For example,
for an EIF operating at 5 tons per hour (tph) and 14,600 actual cubic
feet per minute (acfm) of gas flow, the MACT standard is six times more
stringent.  For larger EIFs operating at 20 tph and 36,800 acfm, the
MACT standard is 10 times more stringent.

	In addition, one of the reasons the cost effectiveness estimates differ
between the major source MACT standard and this rule is that the major
source rule applies to larger foundries with greater economies of scale.
 That said, the HAP emission reductions achieved by the GACT standard
that we are finalizing today are significant.

	Moreover, the commenter’s comparisons of cost effectiveness and
emission reductions between the major source MACT standard and the GACT
standard at issue in this rule are not relevant.  As we have explained
previously, Congress expressly authorized EPA to issue alternative
emission standards for area sources.  Under section 112(d)(5), EPA can
promulgate standards that provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices (GACT) for area sources
listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3).  EPA has done precisely that in
this case.  The fundamental issue here is whether the GACT standard
described above complies with the requirements of section 112(d)(5), and
for all of the reasons described in this preamble and the docket in
support of this final rule, the standard described above for large
foundries represents GACT.

Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category.  There are approximately 83
large area source foundries, and approximately two thirds of these
foundries achieve the GACT level of control (0.8 lb/ton).  We also
examined options more stringent than 0.8 lb/ton and concluded the more
stringent options were not GACT because of the increased cost, due
primarily to the fact that a significant percentage of the foundries
would have to retrofit or replace their existing emission control
systems.  (See 72 FR 52993, September 17, 2007.)  As we explained in an
earlier comment response, we re-evaluated the economic impacts of the
rule as proposed and made appropriate changes to improve our cost
estimates and reduce adverse economic impacts.  For example, we
estimated that three of the large area source foundries that might have
to install additional controls under the rule as proposed would incur
costs that were greater than 3 percent of revenues based on our revised
analysis of impacts.  To minimize economic impacts, we evaluated an
alternative foundry size threshold of 20,000 tpy instead of 10,000 tpy
and found that none of the 30 large area source foundries that might
have to install controls would incur costs greater than 3 percent of
revenues.  We also concluded that a threshold of 20,000 tpy still
resulted in significant emission reductions for metal HAP.  In addition,
only nine plants were estimated to incur costs that were over 1 percent
of sales.  Consequently, we revised the proposed rule to reduce economic
impacts while maintaining significant emission reductions of HAP metals.

	The final GACT standard for large foundries will provide reductions of
13.2 tpy of compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, which
are all “Urban HAP” for which this category was listed pursuant to
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k).  EPA listed these metal compounds as
Urban HAP because of their significant adverse health effects.  A large
portion of the reductions of these Urban HAP will occur in the urban
areas that EPA identified in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
See CAA 112(k)(3)(C).

	The primary HAP emitted from melting iron and steel scrap are manganese
and lead with smaller levels of chromium and nickel.  These metals
(especially manganese) are inherent components of the scrap that is
melted, and at the high temperatures used in the melting furnaces, the
HAP metals are unavoidably vaporized and emitted.  These metal HAP are
present in the particulate matter emissions from the furnace, and
because they are in particulate form, they can be captured and removed
from the gas stream at high efficiency by control devices designed to
capture PM (such as baghouses).  The nature of these emissions and the
HAP composition are unique to iron and steel melting furnaces and are
quite different from the emissions from other processes and operations
that do not involve melting metal scrap at high temperatures.

	There are adverse health effects associated with the metal HAP emitted
from melting furnaces such as EIF.  Hexavalent chromium and certain
forms of nickel are known human carcinogens.  Lead is toxic at low
concentrations, and children are particularly sensitive to the chronic
effects of lead.  Chronic exposure to manganese affects the central
nervous system.  Additional details on the health and environmental
effects of these HAP can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html .  In addition, 75
percent of the emissions are in the form of fine particulate matter, and
EPA studies have found that fine particles continue to be a significant
source of health risks in many urban areas.

In summary, the GACT standard for EIFs will reduce the emissions of
urban metal HAP from area source foundries in urban areas, which will
reduce the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants.  As
discussed earlier, these reductions will be achieved by technology and
management practices that are generally available at large area source
foundries.  Furthermore, we have incorporated into this final rule
certain provisions of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)
that afford sources additional flexibility.  For example, existing
sources can request an additional year to comply with the standard if
they can demonstrate to the permitting authority that such additional
time is needed to install controls.  See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A).  In
addition, EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 112(l) provide
further flexibility.  Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provides
that a State may seek approval of permit terms and conditions that
differ from those specified in a section 112 rule, if the State can
demonstrate that the terms and conditions of the permit are equivalent
to the requirements of this rule.  The procedures for seeking approval
of such a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR 63.94.

4.  Economic Impacts

	Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA’s economic impact assessment
is deficient.  The commenter stated that EPA defined this rule as a
“significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, a
definition that triggers specific requirements to provide economic
impact analyses that include a statement of need for the proposed rule,
examination of alternative approaches and analysis of social benefits
and costs.  The commenter stated that EPA has not met these requirements
in a clear and comprehensive manner that allows for the evaluation of
the regulatory costs and impacts.  The commenter recommended that EPA
provide a direct listing of the projected revenue and compliance costs
for each foundry.

	Response:  The proposed rule (and this final rule) was declared a
“significant regulatory action” by the Office of Management and
Budget because it raised novel legal or policy issues.  In the preamble
to the proposed rule and supporting material in the docket, EPA met its
obligations under section 6(a)(3)(B) of Executive Order 12866 to provide
“a reasonably detailed description of the need for the regulatory
action and an explanation of how the regulatory action will meet that
need” as well as “an assessment of the potential costs and benefits
of the regulatory action”.  Section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive Order
12866 imposes additional obligations on agencies for economically
significant rules, but these additional obligations do not apply to this
rule because it is not economically significant.

	We consider that the level of analysis provided for the proposed and
final rule is appropriate for this rulemaking.  We relied on nationwide
impact estimates for the proposed rule (instead of uncertain
facility-specific analyses) and included the relevant analyses in the
docket for public review at proposal (Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359-0007).

	A Monte Carlo analysis was used to assess the impacts for this final
rule.  This type of analysis provides an excellent means of determining
the average nationwide impacts including average control cost estimates,
average emission reductions, average number of foundries exceeding a set
cost-to-revenue ratio, etc.  The Monte Carlo analysis also provides a
means to assess the uncertainty associated with these impacts.  Although
the Monte Carlo analysis provides meaningful nationwide impacts, it does
not provide facility-specific impacts.  We have included in the docket
all relevant economic impacts analyses conducted for this final rule.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA underestimated the economic
impact because the compliance costs were underestimated.  One commenter
stated that his facility was a small foundry that exceeded the 10,000
tpy threshold.  The commenter stated that their revenue was
approximately $5 to 6 million and the control equipment costs would
exceed $1 million for their foundry, which would cause the facility to
declare bankruptcy.  Another commenter stated that the rule, as
proposed, would likely cause their facility to close, resulting in a
loss of jobs and exporting the business to countries that have little or
no environmental regulations.  Another commenter stated that the
proposed rule would have a significant negative financial impact on
their business and disagreed with the proposed rule requirements.

Response:  As described previously, after reviewing and revising both
the emission and cost impact estimates, the impacts of the rule were
re-evaluated.  The number of existing foundries potentially impacted
greater than 3 percent of revenues increased to three based on the
revised analysis.  Therefore, based on the revised impact analysis, we
concluded that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for
existing large foundries was not appropriate.  We evaluated alternative
standards using the revised impacts methodology and selected a 20,000
tpy threshold for existing large foundries for this final rule.  We
estimate no foundries will be impacted greater than 3 percent of
revenues at this higher production threshold.

	Comment:  Six commenters recommended that the economic impacts be
evaluated on the furnace level rather than on the foundry level.  The
commenters requested that EPA include only the revenue based on the
portion of the metal produced from a particular furnace that is in need
of additional controls.  The commenters stated that this approach will
reduce the revenue for many foundries and make it more likely that the
cost-to-revenue ratio exceeds benchmark thresholds.

Response:  We disagree with the commenters.  The cost-to-revenue
benchmark is typically evaluated at the entity level.  For this
analysis, we evaluated the impacts on the foundry level.  It is possible
that some entities operate several foundries.  As such, we may have
already overestimated the number of entities impacted greater than a
given cost-to-revenue benchmark.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the cost-to-revenue ratio benchmark
thresholds that EPA used are inappropriate for the foundry industry.
The commenter provided data of the “pre-tax profitability” (defined
by the commenter as income subject to tax divided by total business
receipts) for foundries with assets less than $10-million averages only
1.02 percent, which is much less than the manufacturing industry as a
whole.  The commenter also stated that roughly 70 percent of foundries
did not show a profit at all in 2002 and 2003. The commenter warned that
recent reports indicating that profit margins of 5.4 percent were
realized by foundries in 2005 and 2006 were not statistically designed
and were therefore biased toward more profitable firms.  If EPA does
consider these recent reports, the commenter urged EPA to use an average
profitability over the past 5 years as a better indicator of the
affordability of compliance costs.  The commenter also stated that U.S.
foundries cannot pass on price increases to the consumer due to
international competition, citing 2005 US International Trade Commission
(ITC) report.

Eleven commenters stated that the rule would have an adverse economic
impact on a significant number of foundries due to the industry’s low
profit margins and foreign competition.  Six of these commenters also
stated that the foundry industry has a common profit margin of
approximately 2 percent so that impacts of 1 percent are significant to
this industry.

Response:  First, most foundries with 10,000 tpy or more of metal
charged have assets of $10 million so the 1 percent profit margin quoted
by one of the commenters for these smaller foundries is really
immaterial.  It is the profit margin for the larger foundries that are
relevant to the foundries that are materially impacted by this final
rule.  Profit margins generally increase with revenue, therefore, the
profit margin for foundries greater than 20,000 tpy are likely well
above the 2 percent values suggested by the commenters, so that impacts
of 1 percent would not impose a significant adverse economic impact.
Based on our revised analysis and the 20,000 tpy threshold, we expect
there will be no foundries impacted greater than 3 percent of revenues,
at most only one foundry may be impacted greater than 2 percent, and an
average of nine foundries would be impacted greater than 1 percent.  As
such, we estimate that there will not be a significant adverse economic
impact for a substantial number of iron and steel foundry area sources
subject to this final rule.

	Comment:  Six commenters stated that the capital investment costs of
roughly $1 million will be incurred by many foundries, and that it will
be difficult to secure financing for such a significant investment for a
non-revenue-generating project.  One of the commenters stated that the
high capital investment that would be required by this rule is nearly
three times the capital investment made in the plant (for income
producing equipment) for all of 2007.  The commenters recommended that
EPA re-assess the economic impacts in light of their comments.

Response:  We appreciate the difficulty making investment in non-income
generating equipment, especially for small facilities.  This was part of
the consideration in selecting the higher 20,000 tpy threshold.
However, we are required to establish area source standards based on our
assessment of the industry and, for the reasons discussed in this
preamble, we believe the control technologies and management practices
described above represent GACT for the subcategories at issue in this
final rule.

G.  Miscellaneous

	Comment:  One commenter stated that some of the references in
§63.10890 need correction.  In §63.10892(c)(2), references are made to
§63.10892(b)(2) and (3) which do not exist and in §63.10890(d)(4),
there is a reference to (b)(2) which does not exist.

	Response:  We have revised the proposed rule to correct these
citations.

	Comment:  One commenter requested that EPA specify the document
retention time for information not submitted to the agency.

	Response:  We have revised the proposed recordkeeping requirements for
small and large foundries to specify a 5-year period for record
retention.

V.  Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule

	 We estimate that the final rule (using 20,000 tpy as the production
capacity threshold for existing affected sources) will reduce emissions
of HAP metal compounds by 13.7 tpy and will reduce PM emissions by 380
tpy from the baseline.  Additionally, the final standard is expected to
reduce emissions of organic HAP by 32 tpy.  The total capital cost of
the final standard is estimated at $17 million.  The annual operating,
maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs of the final
standard are estimated at $3.2 million per year.  The total annualized
cost of the final standard, including the annualized cost of capital
equipment, is estimated at $4.8 million.  Additional information on our
impact estimates on the sources is available in the docket.  (See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359.)

	The final standard is estimated to impact a total of 427 area source
iron and steel foundries.  When subcategorizing foundries by production
thresholds, we estimate that 83 of these foundries are large iron and
steel foundries and 344 foundries are small iron and steel foundries.
Approximately 35 percent of the large iron and steel foundries are owned
by small entities whereas 85 percent of the small iron and steel
foundries are owned by small entities.

	The secondary impacts include solid waste generated as a result of the
PM emissions collected and energy impacts associated with operation of
control devices.  At a 20,000 tpy production capacity threshold, we
estimate that 440 tpy of solid waste will be generated and an additional
4,400 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy will be consumed
each year as a result of the final standard.

VI.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a “significant regulatory action” because it may “raise novel
legal or policy issues.”  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have
been documented in the docket for this action.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

	The information requirements in this rule have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (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 number 2267.02.  The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the requirements in EPA’s National Program for Mercury Switch
Removal (a voluntary agreement with participating industries) and the
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 the
Agency’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

	All foundries are required to submit an initial notification that
classifies their facility as a small or large foundry and a subsequent
notification for any change in classification.  All foundries also are
required to maintain monthly production data to support their
classification as a large or small foundry.

	The final NESHAP requires small area source foundries to submit an
initial notification of applicability and a notification of compliance
status according to the requirements in the General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A).  Small area source foundries also must report any
deviation from the pollution prevention management standards in the
semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions.
Large area source foundries are required to prepare and follow an O&M
plan, conduct initial performance tests and follow-up tests every 5
years, conduct control device inspections or monitor control device
operating parameters, conduct opacity tests every 6 months for fugitive
emissions, inspect and repair capture systems, and keep records to
document compliance with the rule requirements.  The owner or operator
of an existing affected source is allowed to certify compliance with the
emissions limits based on the results of prior performance tests that
meet the rule requirements; the owner or operator must provide advance
notification of the intent to use a prior performance test instead of
conducting a new test.  If compliance with the emissions limits for
metal melting furnaces is demonstrated through emissions averaging, the
owner or operator is required to demonstrate compliance for each
calendar month using a calculation procedure in the rule.  The owner or
operator of a large foundry is subject to all requirements in the
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) for startup, shutdown, and malfunction
records and reports and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
40 CFR 63.10.  The semiannual report must include summary information on
excursions or exceedances, monitor downtime incidents, and deviations
from management practices and operation and maintenance requirements.

The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 6,064 labor hours per
year at a cost of $420,718 for the 427 area sources, with annualized
capital costs of $8,490 and no O&M costs.  No new area sources are
estimated during the next 3 years.  These estimates represent the
maximum burden that would be imposed by the final standards (based on a
subcategorization using an annual metal melt production threshold of
20,000 tons for an existing affected source classified as a small
foundry).

 	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.  When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

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 rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as:  (1) a small business that meets
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses
found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS codes 331511,
331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that
is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.

	After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are iron and steel
foundries that are area sources.  We estimate that this rule will impact
a total of 427 area source iron and steel foundries; 319 of these
foundries are small entities based on employment.  We estimate that 83
of these foundries are large iron and steel foundries (metal melt
production greater than 20,000 tpy), and 344 foundries are small iron
and steel foundries (metal melt production of 20,000 tpy or less).
Approximately 45 percent of the large iron and steel foundries are owned
by small entities whereas 85 percent of the small iron and steel
foundries are owned by small entities.  Our analysis shows that small
entity compliance costs, as assessed by the foundry’s cost-to-sales
ratio, are expected to range from 0.01 to 2.3 percent.  The analysis
also shows that of the 30 existing foundries owned by small entities
subject to the requirements for large foundries (i.e., exceeding 20,000
tpy melt production), no small entity will incur economic impacts
exceeding 3 percent of its revenue and only one small entity will incur
economic impacts exceeding 2 percent of its revenue.

	Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.  This final rule
minimizes the impact on small entities by applying special provisions
for small foundries that melt low quantities of metal (less than 20,000
tpy).  Small iron and steel foundries are required to prepare and follow
pollution prevention management practices for metallic scrap and binder
formulations, submit one-time notifications, monitor their metal melting
rate on a monthly basis, report deviations if they occur, and keep
certain records.  Although this final rule contains requirements for new
area sources, we are not specifically aware of any new area sources
being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and consequently,
we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

	EPA has determined that 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 the private
sector in any one year.  This final rule is not expected to impact
State, local, or tribal governments.  Thus, this final rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  EPA
has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.  This
final rule contains no requirements that apply to such governments, and
imposes no obligations upon them.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132 entitled “Federalism” (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” is 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

	Executive Order 13175 entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  This final rule imposes
no requirements on tribal governments.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.

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 final rule is not subject
to the Executive Order because it is based on technology performance and
not on health or safety risks.

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

	This final rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.  Further,
we have concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects because energy requirements will not be significantly
impacted by the additional pollution controls or other equipment that
are required by this final rule.

I.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

	As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113,
Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.  The
VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed
or adopted by VCS bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and
applicable VCS.

	This final rule involves technical standards.  The EPA cites the
following standards:  EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 9, 22, and 29 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
and EPA Method 9095B, "Paint Filter Liquids Test," (revision 2, November
1994) (incorporated by reference-see §63.14).

	Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in
addition to the EPA methods.  No applicable VCS were identified for EPA
Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5B, 5D, 5F, 9, 22, 29, or 9095B.  The search
and review results are in the docket for this rule.

	One VCS was identified as applicable to this final rule.  The standard
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated
by reference—see §63.14) is cited in this final rule for its manual
method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and CO content of the
exhaust gas.  This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 13 other
VCS.  EPA determined that these 13 standards identified for measuring
emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in this
final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of this final rule.  Therefore, EPA is not adopting these
standards for this purpose.  The reasons for the determinations for the
13 methods are discussed in a memorandum in the docket for this final
rule.

For the methods required or referenced by this final rule, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under 40 CFR 63.7(f)
and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.

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

	Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice
part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population.  The nationwide standards will reduce HAP emissions and thus
decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected populations are
exposed.

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.  The 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 the 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 [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Dated:

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A—-[AMENDED]

	2.  Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(1) and
(k)(1)(i) through (iv) to read as follows:

§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
§§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), Table 5
to subpart DDDDD of this part, and Table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this
part.

*   *   *   *   *

	(k)  *  *  *

	(1)  *  *  *

	(i)  Method 0023A, “Sampling Method for Polychlorinated Dibenzo- p
-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran Emissions from Stationary
Sources,” dated December 1996, IBR approved for §63.1208(b)(1) of
Subpart EEE of this part.

	(ii)  Method 9071B, “n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) for Sludge,
Sediment, and Solid Samples,” dated April 1998, IBR approved for
§63.7824(e) of Subpart FFFFF of this part.

	(iii)  Method 9095A, “Paint Filter Liquids Test,” dated December
1996, IBR approved for §§63.7700(b) and 63.7765 of Subpart EEEEE of
this part.

	(iv)  Method 9095B, “Paint Filter Liquids Test,” (revision 2),
dated November 2004, IBR approved for the definition of “Free organic
liquids” in §63.10692, §63.10885(a)(1), and the definition of
“Free liquids” in §63.10906.

*   *   *   *   *

	3.  Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZZ to read as follows:

Subpart ZZZZZ—-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.10880  Am I subject to this subpart?

63.10881	What are my compliance dates?

Pollution Prevention Management Practices for New and Existing

	Affected Sources

63.10885  What are my management practices for metallic scrap and
mercury switches?

63.10886  What are my management practices for binder formulations?

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Small
Foundries

63.10890  What are my management practices and compliance requirements?

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large
Foundries

63.10895  What are my standards and management practices?

63.10896  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

63.10897	What are my monitoring requirements?

63.10898  What are my performance test requirements?

63.10899	What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

63.10900	What parts of the General Provisions apply to my large foundry?

Other Requirements and Information

63.10905  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.10906  What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63—-Performance Test Requirements for
New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries

Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63—-Establishment of Operating Limits
for New Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries

Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63—-Applicability of General
Provisions to New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large
Foundries

Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63—-Compliance Certifications for New
and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries

Subpart ZZZZZ—-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources

Applicability and Compliance Dates

§63.10880  	Am I subject to this subpart?

	(a)	You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron and
steel foundry that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions.

	(b)	This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.  The
affected source is each iron and steel foundry.

	(1)	An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source before September 17, 2007.

	(2)	An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 17, 2007.
If an affected source is not new pursuant to the preceding sentence, it
is not new as a result of a change in its compliance obligations
pursuant to §63.10881(d).

	(c)	On and after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
if your iron and steel foundry becomes a major source as defined in
§63.2, you must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE.

	(d)  This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.

	(e)  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 by
law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.

	(f)  If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
determine the initial applicability of the requirements of this subpart
to a small foundry or a large foundry based on your facility’s metal
melt production for calendar year 2008.  If the metal melt production
for calendar year 2008 is 20,000 tons or less, your area source is a
small foundry.  If your metal melt production for calendar year 2008 is
greater than 20,000 tons, your area source is a large foundry.  You must
submit a written notification to the Administrator that identifies your
area source as a small foundry or a large foundry no later than [INSERT
DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(g)  If you own or operate a new affected source, you must determine
the initial applicability of the requirements of this subpart to a small
foundry or a large foundry based on your facility’s annual metal
melting capacity at startup.  If the annual metal melting capacity is
10,000 tons or less, your area source is a small foundry.  If the annual
metal melting capacity is greater than 10,000 tons, your area source is
a large foundry.  You must submit a written notification to the
Administrator that identifies your area source as a small foundry or a
large foundry no later than 120 days after startup.

§63.10881  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 by the dates
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.

	(1)  Not later than [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for the pollution prevention management practices
for metallic scrap in §63.10885(a) and binder formulations in
§63.10886.

	(2)  Not later than [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for the pollution prevention management practices
for mercury in §63.10885(b).

	(3)	Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, not later than
2 years after the date of your large foundry’s notification of the
initial determination required in §63.10880(f) for the standards and
management practices in §63.10895.

	(b)	If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup
date is on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart not later than [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

	(c)	If you own or operate a new affected source for which the initial
startup date is after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart upon startup of your affected source.

	(d)  Following the initial determination for an existing affected
source required in §63.10880(f),

	(1)  Beginning January 1, 2010, if the annual metal melt production of
your small foundry exceeds 20,000 tons during the preceding calendar
year, you must submit a notification of foundry reclassification to the
Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.

	(i)  If your small foundry has never been classified as a large
foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no
later than 2 years after the date of your foundry’s notification that
the annual metal melt production exceeded 20,000 tons.

	(ii)  If your small foundry had previously been classified as a large
foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no
later than the date of your foundry’s most recent notification that
the annual metal melt production exceeded 20,000 tons.

	(2)  If your facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or
your small foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), you must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years
before reclassifying your facility as a small foundry, even if your
annual metal melt production falls below 20,000 tons.  After 3 years,
you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided your annual
metal melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 tons or
less.  If you reclassify your large foundry as a small foundry, you must
submit a notification of reclassification to the Administrator within 30
days and comply with the requirements for a small foundry no later than
the date you notify the Administrator of the reclassification.  If the
annual metal melt production exceeds 20,000 tons during a subsequent
year, you must submit a notification of reclassification to the
Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements for a
large foundry no later than the date you notify the Administrator of the
reclassification.

	(e)  Following the initial determination for a new affected source
required in §63.10880(g),

	(1)  If you increase the annual metal melt capacity of your small
foundry to exceed 10,000 tons, you must submit a notification of
reclassification to the Administrator within 30 days and comply with the
requirements for a large foundry no later than the startup date for the
new equipment, if applicable, or the date of issuance for your revised
State or Federal operating permit.

	(2)  If your facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or
your small foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), you must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years
before reclassifying your facility as a small foundry.  After 3 years,
you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided your most
recent annual metal melt capacity is 10,000 tons or less.  If you
reclassify your large foundry as a small foundry, you must notify the
Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements for a
small foundry no later than the date your melting equipment was removed
or taken out of service, if applicable, or the date of issuance for your
revised State or Federal operating permit.

Pollution Prevention Management Practices for New and Existing

Affected Sources

§63.10885  What are my management practices for metallic scrap and
mercury switches?

	(a)  Metallic scrap management program.  For each segregated metallic
scrap storage area, bin or pile, you must comply with the materials
acquisition requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
You must keep a copy of the material specifications onsite and readily
available to all personnel with material acquisition duties, and provide
a copy to each of your scrap providers.  You may have certain scrap
subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and other scrap subject to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section at your facility provided the metallic
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.

	(1)  Restricted metallic scrap.  You must prepare and operate at all
times according to written material specifications for the purchase and
use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do
not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine
blocks, post-consumer oil filters, oily turnings, lead components,
chlorinated plastics, or free liquids.  For the purpose of this subpart,
“free liquids” is defined as material that fails the paint filter
test by EPA Method 9095B, “Paint Filter Liquids Test” (revision 2),
November 2004 (incorporated by reference-see §63.14).  The requirements
for no free liquids do not apply if the owner or operator can
demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted from scrap
exposure to rain.

	(2)  General iron and steel scrap.  You must prepare and operate at all
times according to written material specifications for the purchase and
use of only iron and steel scrap that has been depleted (to the extent
practicable) of organics and HAP metals in the charge materials used by
the iron and steel foundry.  The materials specifications must include
at minimum the information specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of
this section.

	(i)  Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section,
specifications for metallic scrap materials charged to a scrap preheater
or metal melting furnace to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of
the presence of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic parts, accessible
lead-containing components (such as batteries and wheel weights), and a
program to ensure the scrap materials are drained of free liquids.

	(ii)  For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is
equipped with an afterburner, specifications for metallic scrap
materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of
chlorinated plastics, accessible lead-containing components (such as
batteries and wheel weights), and a program to ensure the scrap
materials are drained of free liquids.

	(b)  Mercury requirements.  For scrap containing motor vehicle scrap,
you must procure the scrap pursuant to one of the compliance options in
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each scrap provider,
contract, or shipment.  For scrap that does not contain motor vehicle
scrap, you must procure the scrap pursuant to the requirements in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section for each scrap provider, contract, or
shipment.  You may have one scrap provider, contract, or shipment
subject to one compliance provision and others subject to another
compliance provision.

	(1)  Site-specific plan for mercury switches.  You must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.

	(i)  You must include a requirement in your scrap specifications for
removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap.

	(ii)  You must prepare and operate according to a plan demonstrating
how your facility will implement the scrap specification in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section for removal of mercury switches.  You must
submit the plan to the Administrator for approval.  You must operate
according to the plan as submitted during the review and approval
process, operate according to the approved plan at all times after
approval, and address any deficiency identified by the Administrator or
delegated authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan.  You
may request approval to revise the plan and may operate according to the
revised plan unless and until the revision is disapproved by the
Administrator or delegated authority.  The Administrator or delegated
authority may change the approval status of the plan upon 90-days
written notice based upon the semiannual report or other information.
The plan must include:

	(A)  A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers
the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury
switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper management
of the mercury switches removed from the scrap as required under the
rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268).  The plan must
include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate
to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to promote the
removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles.  Upon the request
of the Administrator or delegated authority, you must provide examples
of materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters,
contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection
protocols;

	(B)  Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers motor
vehicle scrap provided to the facility meet the scrap specification;

	(C)  Provisions for periodic inspections or other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury
switches in motor vehicle scrap and that the mercury switches removed
are being properly managed, including the minimum frequency such means
of corroboration will be implemented; and

	(D)  Provisions for taking corrective actions (i.e., actions resulting
in scrap providers removing a higher percentage of mercury switches or
other mercury-containing components) if needed, based on the results of
procedures implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section).

	(iii)  You must require each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an
estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle
scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and the basis for
the estimate.  The Administrator may request documentation or additional
information at any time.

	(iv)  You must establish a goal for each scrap supplier to remove at
least 80 percent of the mercury switches.  Although a site-specific plan
approved under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may require only the
removal of convenience light switch mechanisms, the Administrator will
credit all documented and verifiable mercury-containing components
removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake
systems, security systems, active ride control, and other applications)
when evaluating progress towards the 80 percent goal.

	(v)  For each scrap provider, you must submit semiannual progress
reports to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury switches
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the
estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of
mercury switches removed, and certification that the removed mercury
switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise
properly managed pursuant to RCRA subtitle C regulations referenced in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.  This information can be
submitted in aggregate form and does not have to be submitted for each
shipment.  The Administrator may change the approval status of a
site-specific plan following 90-days notice based on the progress
reports or other information.

	(2)  Option for approved mercury programs.  You must certify in your
notification of compliance status that you participate in and purchase
motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a
program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section.  If you purchase motor vehicle scrap from a
broker, you must certify that all scrap received from that broker was
obtained from other scrap providers who participate in a program for the
removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator
based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.  The National Mercury Switch Recovery Program and the State of
Maine Mercury Switch Removal Program are EPA-approved programs under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section unless and until the Administrator
disapproves the program (in part or in whole) under paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section.

	(i)  The program includes outreach that informs the dismantlers of the
need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance
for removing mercury switches;

	(ii)  The program has a goal to remove at least 80 percent of mercury
switches from motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider processes.
Although a program approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this section may
require only the removal of convenience light switch mechanisms, the
Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable
mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as
sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride
control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the 80
percent goal; and

	(iii)  The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the
Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the
number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered
from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification
that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at facilities with
permits as required under the rules implementing subtitle C of RCRA (40
CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268).  The progress reports must be based
on a database that includes data for each program participant; however,
data may be aggregated at the State level for progress reports that will
be publicly available.  The Administrator may change the approval status
of a program or portion of a program (e.g., at the State level)
following 90-days notice based on the progress reports or on other
information.

	(iv)  You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the
manner through which your facility is participating in the EPA-approved
program.

	(A)  The plan must include facility-specific implementation elements,
corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a trade
association as appropriate for each facility.

	(B)  You must provide in the plan documentation of direction to
appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap
supply chain the need to promote the removal or mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles.  Upon the request of the Administrator or
delegated authority, you must provide examples of materials that are
used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, contract language,
policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection protocols.

	(C)  You must conduct periodic inspections or other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware of the need for
and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of
mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.

	(3)  Option for specialty metal scrap.  You must certify in your
notification of compliance status and maintain records of documentation
that the only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap are materials
recovered for their specialty alloy (including, but not limited to,
chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys) content (such as certain
exhaust systems) and, based on the nature of the scrap and purchase
specifications, that the type of scrap is not reasonably expected to
contain mercury switches.

	(4)  Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.  For scrap not
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section, you must certify in your notification of compliance status and
maintain records of documentation that this scrap does not contain motor
vehicle scrap.

§63.10886  What are my management practices for binder formulations?

	For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line at a new or
existing iron and steel foundry, you must use a binder chemical
formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the
catalyst formulation.  This requirement does not apply to the resin
portion of the binder system.

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Small
Foundries

§63.10890  What are my management practices and compliance
requirements?

	(a)  You must comply with the pollution prevention management practices
for metallic scrap and mercury switches in §63.10885 and binder
formulations in §63.10886.

	(b)  You must submit an initial notification of applicability according
to §63.9(b)(2).

	(c)  You must submit a notification of compliance status according to
§63.9(h)(1)(i).  You must send the notification of compliance status
before the close of business on the 30th day after the applicable
compliance date specified in §63.10881.  The notification must include
the following compliance certifications, as applicable:

	(1)  “This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written
material specifications for metallic scrap according to
§63.10885(a)(1)” and/or “This facility has prepared, and will
operate by, written material specifications for general iron and steel
scrap according to §63.10885(a)(2).”

	(2)  “This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written
material specifications for the removal of mercury switches and a
site-specific plan implementing the material specifications according to
§63.10885(b)(1) and/or “This facility participates in and purchases
motor vehicles scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a
program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the
Administrator according §63.10885(b)(2) and has prepared a plan for
participation in the EPA-approved program according to
§63.10885(b)(2)(iv)” and/or “The only materials from motor vehicles
in the scrap charged to a metal melting furnace at this facility are
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content in accordance with
§63.10885(b)(3) which are not reasonably expected to contain mercury
switches” and/or “This facility complies with the requirements for
scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap in accordance with
§63.10885(b)(4).”

	(3)  “This facility complies with the no methanol requirement for the
catalyst portion of each binder chemical formulation for a furfuryl
alcohol warm box mold or core making line according to §63.10886.”

	(d)  As required by §63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of all
information (including all reports and notifications) for at least 5
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,
corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the most recent 2
years of data shall be retained on site.  The remaining 3 years of data
may be retained off site.  Such files may be maintained on microfilm, on
a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape disks, or on
microfiche.

	(e)  You must maintain records of the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section according to the
requirements in §63.10(b)(1).

 	(1)  Records supporting your initial notification of applicability and
your notification of compliance status according to §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

	(2)  Records of your written materials specifications according to
§63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in §63.10885(a)(1) and/or
for the use of general scrap in §63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury in
§63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as applicable.  You must keep records
documenting compliance with §63.10885(b)(4) for scrap that does not
contain motor vehicle scrap.

	(3)  If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury switch removal under §63.10885(b)(1), you must:

	(i)  Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or the
weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, the
estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent
of mercury switches recovered; and

	(ii)  Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and
properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
RCRA-permitted facilities.  The semiannual reports must include a
certification that you have conducted periodic inspections or taken
other means of corroboration as required under §63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C).
You must identify which option in paragraph §63.10885(b) applies to
each scrap provider, contract, or shipment.  You may include this
information in the semiannual compliance reports required under
paragraph (f) of this section.

	(4)  If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs
under §63.10885(b)(2), you must maintain records identifying each scrap
provider and documenting the scrap provider’s participation in an
approved mercury switch removal program.  If you purchase motor vehicle
scrap from a broker, you must maintain records identifying each broker
and documentation that all scrap provided by the broker was obtained
from other scrap providers who participate in an approved mercury switch
removal program.

	(5)  Records to document use of binder chemical formulation that does
not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst
formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line
as required by §63.10886.  These records must be the Material Safety
Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate information), a
certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer’s hazardous air
pollutant data sheet.

	(6)  Records of the annual quantity and composition of each
HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds
and cores.  These records must be copies of purchasing records, Material
Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provide information on
the binder or coating materials used.

	(7)  Records of metal melt production for each calendar year.

	(f)  You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator
according to the requirements in §63.10(e).  The report must clearly
identify any deviation from the pollution prevention management
practices in §§63.10885 or 63.10886 and the corrective action taken.

	(g)  You must submit a written notification to the Administrator of the
initial classification of your facility as a small foundry as required
in §63.10880(f) and (g), as applicable, and for any subsequent
reclassification as required in §63.10881(d)(1) or (e), as applicable.

	(h)  Following the initial determination for an existing affected
source as a small foundry, if the annual metal melt production exceeds
20,000 tons during the preceding year, you must comply with the
requirements for large foundries by the applicable dates in
§63.10881(d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii).  Following the initial determination
for a new affected source as a small foundry, if you increase the annual
metal melt capacity to exceed 10,000 tons, you must comply with the
requirements for a large foundry by the applicable dates in
§63.10881(e)(1).

	(i)  You must comply with the following requirements of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A):  §§63.1 through 63.5;
§63.6(a), (b), (c), and (e)(1); §63.9; §63.10(a), (b)(1),
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (f); and §§63.13 through
63.16.  Requirements of the General Provisions not cited in the
preceding sentence do not apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source that is classified as a small foundry.

Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large
Iron and Steel Foundries

§63.10895  What are my standards and management practices?

	(a)  If you own or operate an affected source that is a large foundry
as defined in §63.10906, you must comply with the pollution prevention
management practices in §§63.10885 and 63.10886, the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, and the requirements in
§§63.10896 through 63.10900.

	(b)  You must operate a capture and collection system for each metal
melting furnace at a new or existing iron and steel foundry unless that
furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part of an emissions averaging
group.  Each capture and collection system must meet accepted
engineering standards, such as those published by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

	(c)  You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions from any metal
melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that exceed the
applicable limit in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.  When an
alternative emissions limit is provided for a given emissions source,
you are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative
emissions limit is used to demonstrate compliance.

	(1)  For an existing iron and steel foundry, 0.8 pounds of particulate
matter (PM) per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds of total metal HAP
per ton of metal charged.

	(2)  For a new iron and steel foundry, 0.1 pounds of PM per ton of
metal charged or 0.008 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal
charged.

	(d)  If you own or operate a new affected source, you must comply with
each control device parameter operating limit in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section that applies to you.

	(1)  For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace, you must maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the
initial or subsequent performance test.

	(2)  For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace, you must maintain the voltage and secondary
current (or total power input) to the control device at or above the
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test.

	(e)	If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry, you
must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive emissions from foundry
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed
30 percent.

§63.10896  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

	(a)  You must prepare and operate at all times according to a written
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for each control device for an
emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP, or opacity emissions limit
in §63.10895.  You must maintain a copy of the O&M plan at the facility
and make it available for review upon request.  At a minimum, each plan
must contain the following information:

	(1)  General facility and contact information;

	(2)  Positions responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and repairing
emissions control devices which are used to comply with this subpart;

	(3)  Description of items, equipment, and conditions that will be
inspected, including an inspection schedule for the items, equipment,
and conditions.  For baghouses that are equipped with bag leak detection
systems, the O&M plan must include the site-specific monitoring plan
required in §63.10897(d)(2).

	(4)  Identity and estimated quantity of the replacement parts that will
be maintained in inventory; and

	(5)  For a new affected source, procedures for operating and
maintaining a CPMS in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

 	(b)  You may use any other O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar
plan which addresses the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) through (5) of
this section to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for an O&M
plan.

§63.10897  What are my monitoring requirements?

	(a)  You must conduct an initial inspection of each PM control device
for a metal melting furnace at an existing affected source.  You must
conduct each initial inspection no later than 60 days after you
applicable compliance date for each installed control device which has
been operated within 60 days of the compliance date.  For an installed
control device which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance
date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the
control device.  Following the initial inspections, you must perform
periodic inspections and maintenance of each PM control device for a
metal melting furnace at an existing affected source.  You must perform
the initial and periodic inspections according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.  You must record the
results of each initial and periodic inspection and any maintenance
action in the logbook required in §63.10899(b)(13).

	(1)  For the initial inspection of each baghouse, you must visually
inspect the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks.  You must also
inspect the inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric
filter condition.  Following the initial inspections, you must inspect
and maintain each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

	(i)  You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system ductwork
for leaks.

	(ii)  You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse for
structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric filter
every 6 months.

	(2)  For the initial inspection of each dry electrostatic precipitator,
you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for
corona power and rapper operation, that the corona wires are energized,
and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold.  You
must also visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic housing
unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior of the electrostatic
precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires,
collection plates, hopper, and air diffuser plates.  Following the
initial inspection, you must inspect and maintain each dry electrostatic
precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.

	(i)  You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper
operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air
pressure is present on the rapper manifold.

	(ii)  You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks.

	(iii)  You must conduct inspections of the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air diffuser
plates every 24 months.

	(3)  For the initial inspection of each wet electrostatic precipitator,
you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for
corona power, that the corona wires are energized, and that water flow
is present.  You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and
electrostatic precipitator housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect
the interior of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the
condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate wash
spray heads, hopper, and air diffuser plates.  Following the initial
inspection, you must inspect and maintain each wet electrostatic
precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section.

	(i)  You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the corona
wires are energized, and that water flow is present.

	(ii)  You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork, electrostatic precipitator housing unit, and hopper for leaks.

	(iii)  You must conduct inspections of the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and air
diffuser plates every 24 months.

	(4)  For the initial inspection of each wet scrubber, you must verify
the presence of water flow to the scrubber.  You must also visually
inspect the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks and inspect the
interior of the scrubber for structural integrity and the condition of
the demister and spray nozzle.  Following the initial inspection, you
must inspect and maintain each wet scrubber according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

	(i)  You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of
water flow to the scrubber.

	(ii)  You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks.

	(iii)  You must conduct inspections of the interior of the scrubber to
determine the structural integrity and condition of the demister and
spray nozzle every 12 months.

	(b)  For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace at a new affected source, you must use a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) to measure and record the 3-hour average
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate.

	(c)  For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace at a new affected source, you must measure and
record the hourly average voltage and secondary current (or total power
input) using a CPMS.

	(d)  If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each
negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse as an
alternative to the baghouse inspection requirements in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.  If you own or operate a new affected source, you must
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each
negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse.  You must
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according
to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.

	(1)  Each bag leak detection system must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section.

	(i)  The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams 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 particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using
a strip chart recorder, data logger, or other means.

	(iii)  The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm
set point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and the
alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant
personnel.

	(iv)  The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist of
establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range)
and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the alarm set
points.  If the system is equipped with an alarm delay time feature, you
also must adjust the alarm delay time.

	(v)  Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time.  Except,
once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak
detection system to account for seasonable effects including temperature
and humidity according to the procedures in the monitoring plan required
by paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

	(vi)  For negative pressure baghouses, induced air baghouses, and
positive pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere
through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed
downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.

	(vii)  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 to be incorporated in your O&M plan.  You must operate
and maintain each bag leak detection system according to the plan at all
times.  Each plan must address all of the items identified in paragraphs
(d)(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 will be established.

	(iii)  Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality
assurance procedures.

	(iv)  Maintenance of the bag leak detection system including a routine
maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.

	(v)  How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored.

	(vi)  Procedures for determining what corrective actions are necessary
in the event of a bag leak detection alarm as required in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section.

	(3)  In the event that a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered,
you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm
within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the
cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete
corrective action as soon as practicable, but no later than 10 calendar
days from the date of the alarm.  You must record the date and time of
each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
correction action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed.  Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:

	(i)  Inspecting the bag house for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
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 baghouse department.

	(v)  Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.

	(vi)  Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

	(e)  You must make monthly inspections of the equipment that is
important to the performance of the total capture system (i.e., pressure
sensors, dampers, and damper switches).  This inspection must include
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g., presence
of holes in the ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by dents or
accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion).  You must repair any
defect or deficiency in the capture system as soon as practicable, but
no later than 90 days.  You must record the date and results of each
inspection and the date of repair of any defect or deficiency.

	(f)  You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS or other
measurement device according to your O&M plan.  You must record all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.

	(g)  In the event of an exceedance of an established emissions
limitation (including an operating limit), you must restore operation of
the emissions source (including the control device and associated
capture system) to its normal or usual manner or operation as
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions.  The response shall include
minimizing the period of any startup, shutdown or malfunction and taking
any necessary corrective actions to restore normal operation and prevent
the likely recurrence of the exceedance.  You must record the date and
time correction action was initiated, the correction action taken, and
the date corrective action was completed.

 	(h)  If you choose to comply with an emissions limit in §63.10895(c)
using emissions averaging, you must calculate and record for each
calendar month the pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal
melted from the group of all metal melting furnaces at your foundry.
You must calculate and record the weighted average pounds per ton
emissions rate for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the
foundry determined from the performance test procedures in §63.10898(d)
and (e).

§63.10898  What are my performance test requirements?

	(a)  You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the applicable emissions limits for each metal melting
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that is subject to an
emissions limit in §63.10895(c) and for each building or structure
housing foundry operations that is subject to the opacity limit for
fugitive emissions in §63.10895(e).  You must conduct the test within
180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your
notification of compliance status.

	(1)  If you own or operate an existing iron and steel foundry, you may
choose to submit the results of a prior performance test for PM or total
metal HAP that demonstrates compliance with the applicable emissions
limit for a metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces
provided the test was conducted within the last 5 years using the
methods and procedures specified in this subpart and either no process
changes have been made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit despite such
process changes.

	  (2)  If you own or operate an existing iron and steel foundry and you
choose to submit the results of a prior performance test according to
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must submit a written notification
to the Administrator of your intent to use the previous test data no
later than 60 days after your compliance date.  The notification must
contain a full copy of the performance test and contain information to
demonstrate, if applicable, that either no process changes have been
made since the test, or that the results of the performance test, with
or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite such
process changes.

	(3)  If you have an electric induction furnace equipped with an
emissions control device at an existing foundry, you may use the test
results from another electric induction furnace to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limit in
§63.10895(c) provided the furnaces are similar with respect to the type
of emission control device that is used, the composition of the scrap
charged, furnace size, and furnace melting temperature.

	(4)  If you have an uncontrolled electric induction furnace at an
existing foundry, you may use the test results from another electric
induction furnace to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or
total metal HAP emissions limit in §63.10895(c) provided the test
results are prior to any control device and the electric induction
furnaces are similar with respect to the composition of the scrap
charged, furnace size, and furnace melting temperature.

	(5)  For electric induction furnaces that do not have emission capture
systems, you may install a temporary enclosure for the purpose of
representative sampling of emissions.  A permanent enclosure and capture
system is not required for the purpose of the performance test.

	(b)  You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limits in
§63.10895(c) for a metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting
furnaces no less frequently than every 5 years and each time you elect
to change an operating limit or make a process change likely to increase
HAP emissions.

	(c)  You must conduct each performance test according to the
requirements in §63.7(e)(1), Table 1 to this subpart, and paragraphs
(d) through (g) of this section.

	(d)  To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP
emissions limit in §63.10895(c) for a metal melting furnace in a lb/ton
of metal charged format, compute the process-weighted mass emissions
(Ep) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:

                     (Eq. 1)

Where:

Ep	=	Process-weighted mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP,
pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged;

C	=		Concentration of PM or total metal HAP measured during performance
test run, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);

Q	=	Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry standard cubic feet per
hour (dscf/hr);

T	=	Total time during a test run that a sample is withdrawn from the
stack during melt production cycle, hr;

P	=	Total amount of metal charged during the test run, tons; and

K	=	Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound.

	(e)  To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit in
§63.10895(c) for a group of all metal melting furnaces using emissions
averaging,

	(1)  Determine and record the monthly average charge rate for each
metal melting furnace at your iron and steel foundry for the previous
calendar month; and

	(2)  Compute the mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP using Equation 2
of this section.

 			(Eq. 2)

Where,

EC = The mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP emissions for the group of
all metal melting furnaces at the foundry, pounds of PM or total metal
HAP per ton of metal charged;

Epi =	Process-weighted mass emissions of PM or total metal HAP for
individual emission unit i as determined from the performance test and
calculated using Equation 1 of this section, pounds of PM or total metal
HAP per ton of metal charged;

Tti = Total tons of metal charged for individual emission unit i for the
calendar month prior to the performance test, tons; and

n =	The total number of metal melting furnaces at the iron and steel
foundry.

	(3)  For an uncontrolled electric induction furnace that is not
equipped with a capture system and has not been previously tested for PM
or total metal HAP, you may assume an emissions factor of 2 pounds per
ton of PM or 0.13 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal melted in
Equation 2 of this section instead of a measured test value.  If the
uncontrolled electric induction furnace is equipped with a capture
system, you must use a measured test value.

	(f)  To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP
emissions limit for a metal melting furnace in §63.10895(c) when
emissions from one or more regulated furnaces are combined with other
non-regulated emissions sources, you may demonstrate compliance using
the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.

	(1)  Determine the PM or total metal HAP process-weighted mass
emissions for each of the regulated streams prior to the combination
with other exhaust streams or control device.

	(2)  Measure the flow rate and PM or total metal HAP concentration of
the combined exhaust stream both before and after the control device and
calculate the mass removal efficiency of the control device using
Equation 3 of this section.

           (Eq. 3)

Where:

Ei =	Mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at the control device
inlet, lb/hr;

Eo = 	Mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at the control device
outlet, lb/hr.

	(3)  Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated PM or
total metal HAP process-weighted mass emissions for the regulated
emissions source using Equation 4 of this section:

              (Eq. 4)

Where:

Ep1released 	= Calculated process-weighted mass emissions of PM (or
total metal HAP) predicted to be released to the 	atmosphere from the
regulated emissions source, 	pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of
metal charged; and

Ep1i = 	Process-weighted mass emissions of PM (or total metal HAP) in
the uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, pounds of PM or total metal
HAP per ton of metal charged.

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

	(h)  You must conduct each opacity test for fugitive emissions
according to the requirements in §63.6(h)(5) and Table 1 to this
subpart.

 	(i)  You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit in §63.10895(e) no less frequently
than every 6 months and each time you make a process change likely to
increase fugitive emissions.

	(j)  In your performance test report, you must certify that the capture
system operated normally during the performance test.

	(k)  You must establish operating limits for a new affected source
during the initial performance test according to the requirements in
Table 2 of this subpart.

	(l)  You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber,
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse if you meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.

	(1)  Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your plan to
conduct a new performance test to revise the operating limit.

	(2)  Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limitation in §63.10895(c).

	(3)  Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in Table 2 to this subpart.

§63.10899  What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

	(a)  As required by §63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of all
information (including all reports and notifications) for at least 5
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,
corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the most recent 2
years of data shall be retained on site.  The remaining 3 years of data
may be retained off site.  Such files may be maintained on microfilm, on
a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape disks, or on
microfiche.

 	(b)  In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, you must
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(13) of this section.

	(1)  You must keep records of your written materials specifications
according to §63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with
the requirements for restricted metallic scrap in §63.10885(a)(1)
and/or for the use of general scrap in §63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury
in §63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as applicable.  You must keep records
documenting compliance with §63.10885(b)(4) for scrap that does not
contain motor vehicle scrap.

	(2)  If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury under §63.10885(b)(1), you must:

	(i)  Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or the
weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, the
estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent
of mercury switches recovered; and

	(ii)  Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and
properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
RCRA-permitted facilities.  The semiannual reports must include a
certification that you have conducted periodic inspections or taken
other means of corroboration as required under §63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C).
You must identify which option in §63.10885(b) applies to each scrap
provider, contract, or shipment.  You may include this information in
the semiannual compliance reports required under paragraph (c) of this
section.

	(3)  If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs
under §63.10885(b)(2), you must maintain records identifying each scrap
provider and documenting the scrap provider’s participation in an
approved mercury switch removal program.  If your scrap provider is a
broker, you must maintain records identifying each of the broker’s
scrap suppliers and documenting the scrap supplier’s participation in
an approved mercury switch removal program.

	(4)  You must keep records to document use of any binder chemical
formulation that does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of
the catalyst formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core
making line as required by §63.10886.  These records must be the
Material Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate
information), a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer’s
hazardous air pollutant data sheet.

	(5)  You must keep records of the annual quantity and composition of
each HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make
molds and cores.  These records must be copies of purchasing records,
Material Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provide
information on the binder or coating materials used.

	(6)  You must keep records of monthly metal melt production for each
calendar year.

	(7)  You must keep a copy of the operation and maintenance plan as
required by §63.10896(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with
plan requirements.

	(8)  If you use emissions averaging, you must keep records of the
monthly metal melting rate for each furnace at your iron and steel
foundry, and records of the calculated pounds of PM or total metal HAP
per ton of metal melted for the group of all metal melting furnaces
required by §63.10897(h).

	(9)  If applicable, you must keep records for bag leak detection
systems as follows:

	(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; and

	(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.

	(10)  You must keep records of capture system inspections and repairs
as required by §63.10897(e).

	(11)  You must keep records demonstrating conformance with your
specifications for the operation of CPMS as required by §63.10897(f).

 	(12)  You must keep records of corrective action(s) for exceedances
and excursions as required by §63.10897(g).

	(13)  You must record the results of each inspection and maintenance
required by §63.10897(a) for PM control devices in a logbook (written
or electronic format).  You must keep the logbook onsite and make the
logbook available to the Administrator upon request.  You must keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) through
(iii) of this section.

	(i)  The date and time of each recorded action for a fabric filter, the
results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed
on the bag filters.

	(ii)  The date and time of each recorded action for a wet or dry
electrostatic precipitator (including ductwork), the results of each
inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed for the
electrostatic precipitator.

	(iii)  The date and time of each recorded action for a wet scrubber
(including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results of
any maintenance performed on the wet scrubber.

	(c)  You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator
according to the requirements in §63.10(e).  The reports must include,
at a minimum, the following information as applicable:

	(1)  Summary information on the number, duration, and cause (including
unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, as
applicable, and the corrective action taken;

	(2)  Summary information on the number, duration, and cause (including
unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor downtime incidents (other than
downtime associated with zero and span or other calibration checks, if
applicable); and

	(3)  Summary information on any deviation from the pollution prevention
management practices in §§63.10885 and 63.10886 and the operation and
maintenance requirements §63.10896 and the corrective action taken.

	(d)  You must submit written notification to the Administrator of the
initial classification of your new or existing affected source as a
large iron and steel facility as required in §63.10880(f) and (g), as
applicable, and for any subsequent reclassification as required in
§63.10881(d) or (e), as applicable.

§63.10900  What parts of the General Provisions apply to my large
foundry?

	(a)  If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that is