SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-        ]

RIN 2060-AM36

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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is issuing national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel
foundries).  The requirements for the two area source categories are
combined in one subpart.  The final rule establishes different
requirements for foundries based on size.  Small area source foundries
are required to comply with pollution prevention management practices
for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and binder
formulations.  Large area source foundries are required to comply with
the same pollution prevention management practices as small foundries in
addition to emissions standards for melting furnaces and foundry
operations.  The final standards reflect the generally achievable
control technology and/or management practices for each subcategory.

DATES:  This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:  The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359.  All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the NESHAP for Iron and Steel
Foundries Area Sources Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information Center,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline.  The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I.  General Information

A.  Does this action apply to me?

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

C.  Judicial Review

II.  Background Information

III.  Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A.  What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

B.  What emissions standards are in the form of pollution prevention
management practices?

C.  What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?

D.  What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?

IV.  Summary of Comments and Responses

A.  Applicability and Compliance Dates

B.  Pollution Prevention Management Practices

C.  Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries

D.  Implementation and Enforcement

E.  Definitions

F.  Impact Estimates

G.  Miscellaneous

V.  Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule

VI.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

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

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

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

I.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

K.  Congressional Review Act

I.  General Information

A.  Does this action apply to me?

	The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this final
action include:

Category	NAICS code1	Examples of regulated entities

Industry. . . . . 	331511	Iron foundries.  Iron and steel plants.
Automotive and large equipment manufacturers.

	331512	Steel investment foundries.

	331513	Steel foundries (except investment).

1 North American Industry Classification System.

	This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action.  To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.10880
of subpart ZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources).  If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your
EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A
(General Provisions).

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

	In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN).  A copy of this final
action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/"  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ .  The
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.

C.  Judicial Review

	Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.  Moreover, under section 307(b)(2)
of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.

	Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for us to convene a
proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection
can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the
time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.”  Any person seeking to make
such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration
to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.

II.  Background Information

	Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of
area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.
Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as
the “Urban HAP.”  See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999.  Section 112(c)(3)
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation.  EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP emissions
in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.  Sierra Club sued EPA,
alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source categories
listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) within the time
frame specified by the statute.  See Sierra Club v. Johnson, No.
01-1537, (D.D.C.).  On March 31, 2006, the court issued an order
requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d) for those
area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).  Among
other things, the court order, as amended on October 15, 2007, requires
that EPA complete standards for nine area source categories by December
15, 2007.  We are issuing this final rule in response to the court
order.  Other final NESHAP will complete the required regulatory action
for the remaining area source categories.

	Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources "which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions
of hazardous air pollutants."  As explained in the preamble to the
proposed NESHAP, we are issuing emission standards based on GACT for the
control of the Urban HAP for which the source category was listed
(compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) that are emitted
from metal melting furnaces at area source facilities classified as
large iron and steel foundries.

In addition, we are establishing pollution prevention management
practices based on GACT that apply to all area source foundries.  The
pollution prevention management practices reduce HAP emissions of
organics, metals, and mercury generated from furnace charge materials
and prohibit the use of methanol as a component of binder formulations
in certain applications.   Another pollution prevention management
practice requires that foundries keep a record of the annual quantity
and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder or coating
material used to make molds and cores.  These records may assist area
source foundry owners or operators in their pursuit of pollution
prevention opportunities.

III.  Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A.  What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

	The final NESHAP applies to each new and existing iron and steel
foundry that is an area source of HAP.  The final rule allows 2 years
(instead of 1 year as proposed) for existing foundries to comply with
the pollution prevention standards for mercury.  As proposed, all
foundries must comply with the pollution prevention management practices
for scrap management and binder formulations by [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  A large existing foundry
must comply with applicable emissions limitations and operation and
maintenance requirements no later than 2 years after initial
classification.

	As proposed, different rule requirements apply to facilities classified
as large foundries or small foundries. Based on public comment, we have
revised the threshold level in the definitions of large foundry” and
“small foundry” as they apply to existing affected sources.  For an
existing affected source, we are defining a “small foundry” as an
iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt production of
20,000 tons or less (instead of 10,000 tons).  An existing affected
source that has an annual metal melt production greater than 20,000 tons
is classified as a large foundry.  For new affected sources, we have
revised the basis for determining the threshold.  For a new affected
source, we are defining a “small foundry” as an iron and steel
foundry that has an annual metal melt capacity of 10,000 tons or less.
A new affected source that has an annual metal melt capacity greater
than 10,000 tons is classified as a large foundry.  The term, “annual
metal melt capacity” is defined in the final rule as:

. . . the lower of the total metal melting furnace equipment melt rate
capacity assuming 8,760 operating hours per year summed for all metal
melting furnaces at the foundry or, if applicable, the maximum permitted
metal melt production rate for the iron and steel foundry calculated on
an annual basis.  Unless otherwise specified in the permit, permitted
metal melt production rates that are not specified on an annual basis
must be annualized assuming 24 hours per day, 365 days per year of
operation.  If the permit limits the operating hours of the furnace(s)
or foundry, then the permitted operating hours are used to annualize the
maximum permitted metal melt production rate.

	Each existing foundry must determine its initial classification as a
small or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008.
After the initial classification, an existing affected source classified
as a small foundry that exceeds the 20,000 ton annual metal melt
production threshold during the preceding calendar year must comply with
the applicable requirements for a large foundry within 2 years of the
date of the foundry’s notification that the annual metal melt
production exceeded 20,000 tons (provided the facility has never been
classified as a large foundry).  For example, if an existing small
foundry produces more than 20,000 tons of melted metal from January 1
through December 31, 2009, that facility is required to comply with the
requirements for a large foundry by January 2012.  If the small foundry
has previously been classified as a large foundry, the facility must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry immediately (no later
than the date of the foundry’s most recent notification that the
annual melt production exceeded 20,000 tons).  If an existing facility
is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small foundry becomes a
large foundry), that facility must meet the applicable requirements for
a large foundry for at least 3 years, even if its annual metal melt
production falls below 20,000 tons.  After 3 years, the foundry may
reclassify the facility as a small foundry provided the annual metal
melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 tons or less.
 A large foundry that is reclassified as a small foundry must continue
to comply with the applicable requirements for small foundries
immediately (no later than the date the foundry notifies the
Administrator of the reclassification).  A large foundry that is
reclassified as a small foundry and then exceeds an annual metal melt
production of 20,000 tons for a subsequent calendar year, must comply
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately (no
later than the date the foundry notifies the Administrator of the
reclassification).

	The owner or operator of a new area source foundry must comply with the
rule requirements by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] or upon startup, whichever is later.

Each new foundry must determine its initial classification as a small or
large foundry based on its annual metal melting capacity at startup.
Following the initial determination, a small foundry that increases
their annual metal melting capacity to greater than 10,000 tons must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry no later than the
startup date for the new equipment or if applicable, the date of
issuance for their revised State or Federal operating permit.  If the
new foundry is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small
foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), the owner or operator
must comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3
years before reclassifying the facility as a small foundry.  After 3
years, the owner or operator may reclassify the facility as a small
foundry provided the annual metal melting capacity is 10,000 tons or
less.  If a large foundry is reclassified as a small foundry, the owner
or operator must comply with the requirements for a small foundry no
later than the date the melting equipment was removed or taken out of
service or if applicable, the date of issuance for their revised State
or Federal operating permit.

B.  What emissions standards are in the form of pollution prevention
management practices?

1.  Metallic Scrap

	The material specification requirements are based on pollution
prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials from metallic
scrap before melting.  All foundries must prepare and operate according
to written material specifications for one of two equivalent compliance
options.

	One compliance option requires foundries to prepare and operate
pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase and use of
only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do not
include metallic scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil
filters, oily turnings, lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free
liquids.  The term “free liquids” is defined as material that fails
the paint filter test by EPA Method 9095B (incorporated by
reference—see 40 CFR 63.14) in EPA Publication SW-846, “Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods”.  A new
provision states that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply
if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the free liquid results
from scrap exposed to rain.

	The second compliance option requires foundries to prepare and operate
pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase and use of
scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of organics and
HAP metals in the charge materials used by the foundry.  Except for a
cupola equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap charged to a scrap
preheater or metal melting furnace must be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic parts, accessible
lead-containing components, and free liquids.  For scrap charged to a
cupola metal melting furnace that is equipped with an afterburner, the
material specifications must include requirements for metal scrap to be
depleted (to the extent practicable) of chlorinated plastics, accessible
lead-containing components, and free liquids.  In response to comments,
we deleted a provision in the proposed rule that would have exempted the
routine recycling of baghouse bags or other internal process or
maintenance materials in the furnace.

	Either material specification option will achieve a similar HAP
reduction impact.  Foundries may have certain scrap subject to one
option and other scrap subject to another option provided the metallic
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.

2.  Mercury Switch Removal

	The final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention and
require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from motor vehicles
either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle scrap only
from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved program for the
removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the alternative requirements
described below.  The final rule clarifies that the requirements do not
apply to scrap providers who do not provide motor vehicle scrap or to
contracts and shipments that do not include motor vehicle scrap.
Foundries participating in an approved program must maintain records
identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider’s
participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program.  An
equivalent compliance option is for the foundry to prepare and operate
pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan that includes
specifications to the scrap provider that mercury switches must be
removed from motor vehicle bodies at an efficiency comparable to that of
the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program (see below).  An
equivalent compliance option is provided for facilities that recover
only specialty scrap that does not contain mercury switches.  Provisions
are also included for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.

	We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose to
comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who
participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been
approved by the Administrator.  The NVMSRP is an approved program under
this final standard as is the mercury switch recovery program
implemented by the State of Maine.  Facilities choosing to use the
NVMSRP as a compliance option must assume all of the responsibilities as
described in the MOU.

Foundries may also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating in
other programs.  To do so, the facility owner or operator must submit a
request to the Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing scrap
from scrap providers that are participating in another switch removal
program and demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that the
program meets the following specified criteria:  (1) there is an
outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on switch
removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least 80
percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must submit
annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and the
estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a
percentage of switches removed is easily derivable).

Facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers that
do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal program
must prepare and operate pursuant to and in conformance with a
site-specific plan for the removal of mercury switches, and the plan
must include provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers
that mercury switches have been removed.  The plan must be submitted to
the Administrator for approval and demonstrate how the facility will
comply with specific requirements that include:  (1) 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 disposal of the mercury
switches, (2) provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers
that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specifications, (3) provisions for periodic inspection, 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, (4) provisions for taking corrective
actions if needed, and (5) requiring 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 from the owner or operator at any time.  The
site-specific plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80
percent of the mercury switches.  All documented and verifiable
mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap count
towards the 80 percent goal.

	In response to comments, we have revised the final rule to include
provisions designed to increase the effectiveness and enforceability of
the EPA-approved programs.  The requirements for a site-specific plan
specify that the owner or operator must operate according to the plan
during the review process, operate according to the 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.  The owner or operator 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.  A new provision also requires the site-specific plan to
include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate
to suppliers throughout the supply chain the need to promote the removal
of mercury switches from end of life vehicles.  The owner or operator
must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach to
suppliers at the request of the Administrator or delegated authority.
We have also clarified that the information in the semiannual progress
reports for each scrap provider can be submitted in aggregated form and
does not have to be submitted for each shipment.  We have also revised
the option for approved mercury programs to require that foundries
develop and maintain onsite a written plan demonstrating the manner
through which the facility is participating in the EPA-approved program.
 The plan must include facility-specific implementation elements,
corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a trade
association as appropriate for each facility.  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 or mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles.  The owner or
operator also must conduct periodic inspections or provide 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.

	An equivalent compliance option is provided for foundries that recover
specialty metals.  The option requires the facility to certify that the
only materials they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials
recovered for their specialty alloy content, such as chromium in certain
exhaust systems, and these materials are known not to contain mercury
switches.  We have added to the final rule certification requirements
for facilities that do not use motor vehicle scrap containing mercury
switches.

	Records are required to document conformance with the material
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury
switches.  Each foundry is required to submit semiannual reports that
clearly identify any deviation from the scrap management requirements.
These reports can be submitted as part of the semiannual reports
required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions.

3.  Binder Formulations

	For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line, new and
existing foundries 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.
This final rule includes recordkeeping requirements to document
conformance with this requirement.

C.  What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?

	This final rule requires each new and existing affected source that is
classified as a small foundry to comply with the pollution prevention
management practices for metallic scrap, mercury switches, and binder
formulations described above.  The owner or operator is required to
submit an initial notification of applicability no later than [INSERT
DATE 120 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] (or within 120
days after the foundry becomes subject to the standard; see 40 CFR
63.9(b)(2)).  The foundry is also required to submit an initial written
notification to the Administrator that identifies their facility as a
small (or large) foundry; this notification is due no later than [INSERT
DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Subsequent
notifications are required within 30 days for a change in process or
operations that reclassifies the status of the facility and its
compliance obligations.  A small foundry is also required to submit a
notification of compliance status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).  The
notification of compliance status must include certifications of
compliance for the pollution prevention management practices.  This
final rule also requires small foundries to keep records of monthly
metal melt production and report any deviation from the pollution
prevention management practices in the semiannual report required by 40
CFR 63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions.

	We are also requiring small foundries to keep a record 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 Data Safety Sheets, or other
documentation that provide information on binder materials.  The purpose
of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and use
nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.

D.  What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?

	This final NESHAP requires new and existing affected sources that are
classified as large foundries to comply with the pollution prevention
management practices described in section III.B of this preamble.  In
addition, large foundries are required to operate capture and collection
systems for metal melting furnaces and comply with emissions standards,
operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.

1.  Emissions Limitations

	New and existing affected sources that are classified as large
foundries must comply with emissions limits for metal melting furnaces.
A metal melting furnace includes cupolas, EAF, EIF, or other similar
devices (excluding holding furnaces, argon oxygen decarburization
vessels, or ladles that receive molten metal from a metal melting
furnace, to which metal ingots or other materials may be added to adjust
the metal chemistry).  The final emissions limits for metal melting
furnaces are:

0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds of total metal
HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting furnace at an
existing 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 for each metal melting furnace at a new
iron and steel foundry.

	The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source may choose
to comply with these emission limits utilizing emissions averaging as
specified in this rule so that the production-weighted average emissions
from all metal melting furnaces at the foundry for any calendar month
meet the applicable emissions limit.

	The proposed rule included operating parameter limits that applied to
PM control devices applied to emissions from a metal melting furnace.
We eliminated the operating limit for baghouse pressure drop in response
to comments because this operating parameter was determined not to be an
appropriate indicator of performance.  We have revised the other
operating limits to apply to PM control devices at new affected sources
instead of existing affected sources to minimize costs to existing
sources associated with monitoring system retrofits.  For a wet
scrubber, a foundry 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.  For an electrostatic
precipitator, a foundry 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.  The
final rule does not include an operating limit for baghouses at existing
or new affected sources.  The final NESHAP also includes a fugitive
emissions opacity limit of 20 percent for each building or structure
housing iron and steel foundry operations revised since proposal to
allow one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 30 percent.
Foundry operations covered by the fugitive emissions opacity limit
include all process equipment and practices used to produce metal
castings for shipment including mold or core making and coating; scrap
handling and preheating; metal melting and inoculation; pouring,
cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding and other metal finishing
operations; and sand handling.

2.  Operation and Maintenance Requirements

	The owner or operator is required to prepare and operate by an O&M plan
for each control device used to comply with the standards.  Any other
O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar plan which satisfies the
specified requirements may be used to comply with the requirements for
an O&M plan.

3.  Monitoring Requirements

	In response to comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring
requirements in several respects.  The monitoring requirements in the
final rule apply to new and existing affected sources that are
classified as large foundries (those having an annual metal melt
production greater than 20,000 tons instead of 10,000 tons in the
proposed rule).  We are requiring that large foundries at new and
existing affected sources conduct initial and periodic inspections of PM
control devices (baghouses, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic
precipitators) in lieu of the proposed monitoring requirements.  As an
alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an existing
area source may use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit
instead of complying with the inspection requirements for baghouses.

	We are requiring that large iron and steel foundries at new affected
sources install and operate CPMS to measure and record operating
parameters of wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators used to
comply with PM or total metal HAP emissions limit.  All CPMS must be
operated and maintained according to the O&M plan.  These foundries are
also subject to control device operating limits that are the same as the
proposed operating limits for wet scrubbers and electrostatic
precipitators.  No operating limits apply to baghouses at existing or
new affected sources.

	Bag leak detection systems are required for positive or negative
pressure baghouses at a new area source foundry.  If a bag leak
detection system is used, the owner or operator must prepare and operate
pursuant to a monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system;
specific requirements for the plan are included in this final rule.  For
additional information on bag leak detection systems that operate on the
triboelectric effect, see “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication number PB98164676.
This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA  22161.

	Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the capture system are also required.  The owner or
operator must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system as
soon as practicable but no later than 90 days and record the results of
each inspection and the date of any repair.

	If a large foundry complies with the emissions limits for furnaces
using emissions averaging, the final NESHAP requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis.  The facility
must determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this final rule.
We have reduced the default emissions factor for uncontrolled induction
furnaces in an emissions averaging group from 3 pounds of PM per ton of
metal charged (lb/ton) to 1.6 lb/ton.  The owner or operator must
maintain records of the monthly calculations and report any exceedance
in the semiannual report.

4.  Performance Tests

	We are requiring that each large foundry conduct a performance test to
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM or total metal HAP emissions
limit and the opacity limit for fugitive emissions within 180 days of
the applicable compliance date and submit the results in the
notification of compliance status.  In lieu of conducting an initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or
total metal HAP limit for metal melting furnaces, the owner or operator
of an existing foundry is allowed to submit the results of a previous
performance test provided the test was conducted within the last 5 years
using the methods and procedures specified in the rule and either no
process changes have been made since the test, or the test results
reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit
despite process changes.  If the owner or operator does not have a
previous performance test that meets the rule requirements, a test must
be conducted within 180 days of the compliance date.  Special provisions
also are included for testing electric induction furnaces (EIFs) at
existing foundries.  Performance tests are required for all new area
source foundries.  Subsequent tests for furnaces are required every 5
years and each time an operating limit is changed or a process change
occurs that is likely to increase metal HAP emissions from the furnace.
Provisions are included in this final rule for determining compliance
with PM or total metal HAP emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal charged
format and for establishing control device operating parameter limits.
This final rule also includes requirements to perform opacity testing by
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) every 6 months.  This final rule
describes the methods and requirements for these semiannual opacity
observations.  In response to comments, we have revised the proposed
rule to allow an alternative to the Method 9 test.  The alternative
allows the owner or operator to conduct semiannual VE observations by
Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).  If visible fugitive emissions
from foundry operations occur for more than 10 percent of the Method 22
observation period (i.e., more than a cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-hour
period), the owner or operator must conduct a Method 9 test of the
fugitive emissions from foundry operations as soon as possible, but no
later than 15 days after the Method 22 test to determine compliance with
the opacity limit.

5.  Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

	The owner or operator is required to submit an initial notification
that identifies the facility as a large (or small) foundry.  In
addition, the owner or operator is required to comply with certain
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are identified in Table 3 of this final rule.  The General
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e).  In
addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, all foundries are
required to maintain records to document conformance with the pollution
prevention management practice emissions standards for metallic scrap,
mercury switch removal, and binder formulations as well as to maintain
records of annual melt production and corrective action(s).  Large
foundries must also prepare and operate according to the O&M plan and
record monthly compliance calculations for metal melting furnaces that
comply using emissions averaging, if applicable.  The owner or operator
must submit semiannual reports that provide summary information on
excursions or exceedances (including the corrective action taken),
monitor downtime incidents, and deviations from management practices or
O&M requirements according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.10.

	We are also requiring all foundries to keep a record 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 Data Safety Sheets, or other
documentation that provide information on binder materials.  The primary
purpose of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and
use nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.

6.  Exemption from Title V Permitting Requirements

	For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we are
exempting iron foundries and steel foundries area source categories from
title V permitting requirements.  Although the final rule exempts
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already have
a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this rule
through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the requirements
of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.

IV.  Summary of Comments and Responses

	We received a total of 37 comments on the proposed area source NESHAP
from 31 companies, trade associations, and anonymous members of the
public and from 6 States and State associations during the public
comment period (September 17, 2007 to November 1, 2007).  A public
hearing was held on October 2, 2007 where we received testimony from two
industry representatives.  Sections IV.A through IV.G of this preamble
provide responses to the public comments received on the proposed
NESHAP, including our rationale for changes made as a result of the
comments.

A.  Applicability and Compliance Dates

	Comment:  Nine commenters stated that EPA should consider a higher
plant size threshold of 15,000 tons per year (tpy) of melted metal
because of the significant economic burden associated with the proposed
rule.  In addition, one commenter said the industry subcategorization
threshold should be “significantly above” 15,000 tpy.  Another
commenter stated that it would be difficult to justify the proposed rule
for foundries with a production 30,000 tpy, and that it is not
cost-effective to require controls on foundries with a melt production
less than 15,000 tpy.  One commenter recommended a threshold of 20,000
tpy and two commenters said that the threshold should be
“significantly above” 30,000 tpy.  One commenter opposed the rule as
proposed and recommended that EPA reconsider the proposed size threshold
of 10,000 tpy.

	One commenter supported the co-proposal which would implement only the
pollution prevention management practices.  The commenter stated that
foundries are adequately regulated by existing Federal, State, and local
regulations and the proposed rule would impose significant burden
without significant environmental improvement.

Response:  Based on our consideration of comments, including the
combined effect of the emission and cost impacts on both the nationwide
cost-effectiveness and the economic impacts of the rule, we concluded
that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for new and existing
affected sources that are classified as large foundries may not be
appropriate.  Based on the revised impact analysis, we determined that
the most appropriate size threshold for existing affected sources
classified as large foundries is 20,000 tpy.  However, we found no basis
for increasing the size threshold for new affected sources.  New
affected sources do not have the same retrofit issues as existing
affected sources.  Moreover, there are existing affected sources with
metal melt production of 10,000 tpy that operate controls.  Therefore,
we have retained the 10,000 tpy threshold at which a new affected source
is classified as a large foundry.

	Comment:  One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the rule does
not apply to foundries that produce nonferrous metals where nonferrous
metal means “any pure metal other than iron or any metal alloy for
which a metal other than iron is its major constituent by percent in
weight.”

	Response:  We agree.  The types of facilities identified by the
commenter are covered under other source categories depending on the
type of metal produced (e.g., secondary nonferrous metals, secondary
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.).  In response to this comment, we have
added a definition of “nonferrous metal” to the final rule and
revised the definition of iron and steel foundry” to clarify that
nonferrous metal in scrap, metal melting furnaces, and foundry
operations is not covered by the rule.

  	Comment:  Twelve commenters requested 3 years to comply with the
mercury switch removal program to allow for the program to develop based
on participation by the larger steel producers.  Another commenter
requested 5 years to comply with the mercury switch removal program.

	Response:  We agree that the typical area source foundry does not have
the financial resources and market force over its scrap providers when
compared with the much larger mini-mills.  The area source foundries
purchase only a small fraction of the national supply of scrap from
end-of-life vehicles; the vast majority is used in steelmaking.  Over
time, we expect many more dismantlers will join the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP), and even the smaller scrap
providers will find it to their advantage to participate.  We believe
that an appropriate solution to the difficulties identified by the
commenters is to allow more time for these area source foundries to
comply with the mercury requirements.  Consequently, we are revising the
rule to allow additional time (up to 2 years) to comply with the
pollution prevention requirements for mercury.

B.  Pollution Prevention Management Practices

1.  Requirements for Metallic Scrap

	Comment:  Three commenters stated that the phrase “to the extent
practicable” makes the requirements in the scrap specifications
unenforceable.  The commenters recommended that EPA either define the
term or establish concrete criteria.  One of the commenters recommended
that for scrap containing free liquid, EPA should define “to the
extent practicable” as scrap failing the paint filter test, similar to
§63.10885(a)(1).  Another of the commenters asks what “to the extent
practicable” means and recommends that the phrase “according to
standard industry practice” be used instead; this would make the
foundry and electric arc furnace (EAF) rules more consistent.

	Response:  The commenters are referring to the term, “to the
extent” practicable” as used in §63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed
rule.  We used this term to demonstrate our understanding that furnace
charge materials can not be depleted of 100 percent of the organics and
HAP metals or the presence of used oiled filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids.  We do
not see the need to codify a definition of “practicable” but note
here that our intent is that something is practicable if it is capable
of being put into practice and is feasible.  However, we believe that
the term “standard industry practice” does not have a  significantly
clearer meaning, and in fact may not result in as much removal.  We are
replacing the term in the final EAF rule with the term “to the extent
practicable” as it relates to the removal of lead-containing
components such as batteries and wheel weights.  Therefore, we decided
not to revise the proposed rule for foundries to replace “to the
extent practicable” with “standard industry practice.”

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the requirements for metallic scrap
management in the proposed rule should be the same as for the EAF rule
in that the pollution prevention plan should have Administrator approval
and should require compliance inspections and corrective action.

	Response:  The requirements for scrap management under the proposed
foundries rule differ from the requirements for scrap management under
the proposed EAF rule because we determined that GACT for the iron
foundries and steel foundries area source categories is represented by
written material specifications.   The proposed area source rule for
foundries requires that the facility operate by written specifications
for the purchase and use of specified material or of only scrap that has
been depleted of organics and HAP metals.  These written specifications
must be kept onsite and be readily available; consequently, they can be
reviewed at any time by EPA or the delegated agency for completeness and
for compliance with the rule’s requirements.  The owner or operator
must maintain records demonstrating compliance with these requirements
and must submit a certification of compliance to that effect.  We
continue to believe that these written material specifications represent
GACT for iron and steel foundries, and the additional requirements
recommended by the commenter are not warranted and would be
unnecessarily burdensome for the large population of small area source
foundries.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the proposed rule must be revised
to require the facility’s owner or operator to ensure the “baghouse
bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials” that are
charged in the foundry do not contain organics, HAP metals, chlorinated
plastics, and free organic liquids.  The commenter explained that under
§63.10885(a)(1), if an inspector found organics, HAP metals,
chlorinated plastics or free organic liquids in charge materials, the
inspector would need to demonstrate that these wastes do not stem from
“internal process materials or maintenance materials.”  The
commenter stated that this type of loop hole will make enforcement
difficult.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that the provision exempting
baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials from
scrap management requirements is not needed in this rule and have
deleted the provision from the final rule.

	Comment:  One commenter requested clarification on the limitations for
scrap managed using a scrap preheater equipped with an afterburner.

	Response:  We have revised the proposed rule to clarify that the
limitations for metallic scrap are the same for all scrap preheaters and
metal melting furnaces whether or not the preheater or furnace (except
for a cupola) is equipped with an afterburner.  A different set of
limitations for metallic scrap applies only to cupolas with
afterburners.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that it is virtually impossible to
ensure no free liquids on scrap received when it rains during the
transport of the scrap.  The commenter stated that the impact of this
requirement has been underestimated.

	Response:  Our intent in prohibiting free liquids was to minimize the
presence of organic liquids.  We have clarified in the final rule that
the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the owner or
operator can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted
from scrap exposure to rain.

2.  Requirements for Mercury Switch Removal

	Comment:  One commenter requested that EPA establish mercury emission
performance standards to supplement the scrap management program.  The
commenter recommended that EPA adopt emissions limits (effective in
2010) from the New Jersey standards which require a mercury limit of 35
milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or a reduction of least 75
percent at the exit of the mercury control system.  The commenter stated
that the rule allows facilities time to reduce emissions by removing
sources of mercury from the scrap they process but requires additional
control if the source separation programs are not sufficient to meet the
emissions limit.  The commenter said that one New Jersey foundry had
already installed an activated carbon injection system for mercury
control and a baghouse for the cupola; mercury emission test results
show mercury reductions greater than 90 percent.  The commenter argued
that such an emissions limit is needed to determine the success of the
source separation program and the need for add-on controls for melters.

	Three commenters recommended that the final rule include testing and
monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the mercury switch source
reduction program.  Two commenters stated that the final rule should
require facilities to test emissions within 6 months of the final rule
to establish a baseline for each facility.  One of these commenters also
stated that percent reduction targets and timelines be included in the
final rule along with a sampling program.  The third commenter requested
that the final rule include performance or stack testing (inlet/outlet)
and baghouse hopper dust analysis to confirm and demonstrate reduced
mercury inputs and emissions.  This commenter stated that baghouse
hopper dust testing is used in some States and EPA should evaluate State
requirements to develop national minimum requirements.

	Two of the commenters stated that there are monitoring technologies
that are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry.  The
commenters noted that batch process emissions are tested and monitored
in many industrial sectors, and EPA has established emission standards
for many batch processes without requiring the use of continuous
monitors, including Pesticide Active Ingredient Manufacturing and
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing.  The commenters also said
that EPA has recently promulgated the “sorbent tube” method for
sampling stack gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75,
appendix K).  The commenters explained that because this method of
monitoring mercury is capable of sampling flue gases over any period of
time (hours or even days), there appears to be little impediment to
using this method to sample “batch” processes like those at
foundries.  There are also several statistical sampling techniques that
account for the variability of emissions.

	Response:  We understand from the commenter that there is one major
source foundry with a cupola that has installed emission controls for
mercury.  However, we are not aware that any of the more than 400 area
source iron and steel foundries for which we have emission control
information have installed mercury emission controls, and consequently,
we do not believe that such controls represent GACT for area sources.
On the other hand, pollution prevention practices have been used to
reduce mercury emissions at foundries and similar sources, such as EAF
steelmaking facilities, and these practices have been demonstrated to be
successful at reducing mercury emissions.  We determined that the
pollution prevention requirements for mercury were economically and
technologically feasible and concluded they represent GACT for iron and
steel foundries that are area sources.

	As part of the GACT determination, we concluded that it was not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for mercury because
mercury emissions are highly variable, and we have insufficient
information to determine an emission limit that might be achieved on a
continuing basis.  On the other hand, the pollution prevention approach
quantifies the reduction in mercury release to the environment by
requiring that the amount of mercury recovered from end-of-life vehicles
be reported.  This type of recordkeeping and reporting is an important
monitoring component of the rule and provides assurance that the
requirements are achieving mercury reductions.  The monitoring for
mercury recommended by the commenters is not appropriate because it is
not related to the rule requirements and provides no information related
to enforcing the rule.  We have chosen monitoring requirements that are
applicable to the pollution prevention requirements in the rule.

	Comment:  Three commenters recommended that the final rule include
enforceable measures of accountability to ensure the effectiveness of
the collection programs.  The commenters stated that these measures
should include written documentation and audits of the participation of
suppliers and evaluation of switch recovery rates.  One commenter
recommended a provision for expectations that a certain percentage of
switches will be collected from the vehicles and another commenter
recommended quantifiable measures such as the fraction of switches
collected from the vehicles.  Both commenters stated that the final rule
should include consequences if the programs do not meet their goals.

	One commenter was concerned about using an estimate of the percentage
of mercury switches removed to determine whether an approved plan should
continue to be approved because the estimate of the percentage of
mercury switches removed is highly uncertain and dependant on many
assumptions.  The commenter stated that determining the effectiveness of
site-specific mercury switch removal programs by comparing uncertain
statistics with an aggressive removal goal (80 percent) may cause
effective programs to have their approval revoked.

	Response:  We determined at proposal that GACT for mercury emissions
was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and shredded for
use.  GACT would be implemented by foundry owners purchasing scrap only
from scrap providers that were participating in an EPA-approved program
for switch removal, operating pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific
plan (of equal effectiveness to an EPA-approved program) that ensured
scrap providers had removed mercury switches, or by not melting scrap
from end-of-life vehicles.  We determined that the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Removal Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an
EPA-approved program.  However, we received two comments questioning how
the effectiveness of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and
suggestions for improving aspects of the rule related to program
transparency, enforcement, and implementation.  We have incorporated
several of these suggested improvements into the final rule.  The
improvements include developing and maintaining a plan showing how the
facility is participating in the approved program, documentation of
communication to suppliers of the need to remove mercury switches and
corroboration to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal
procedures.

	The NVMSRP resulted from a 2-year process of collaboration and
negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to create a dedicated
nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing switches from end-of-life
vehicles.  The stakeholders included EPA, automakers, steel
manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap recyclers, and
State agency representatives.  These stakeholders signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) detailing their respective responsibilities and
commitments in the national switch recovery effort.  This effort will
result in substantial reductions in mercury emissions from foundries by
removing the majority of mercury from metal scrap.  In addition, it will
have environmental benefits from reducing mercury emissions from sources
other than foundries and will reduce mercury releases to media other
than air.  EPA recounts this history not to show that the Agency is
blindly accepting this negotiated agreement, but that EPA has examined
the agreement anew in light of the requirements of section 112(d) and
finds that the program resulting from that agreement meets the statutory
requirements.  The success of the program has been documented by direct
measurements of mercury in switches removed, and as of November 28,
2007, over 843,000 switches with 1,855 pounds of mercury have been
recovered.

	As we stated in detail at proposal, this pollution prevention approach
was determined to be GACT for reducing mercury emissions from foundries.
 Emissions of mercury result from the melting of scrap metal that
contains mercury components.  When these components are removed prior to
charging the scrap to a metal melting furnace, the mercury emissions are
prevented.  Thousands of automobile recyclers have already joined the
NVMSRP, although not all members have yet sent in recycled switches.
Information on the program, including scrap suppliers who have joined
and the number of switches they have turned in to date, can be found on
the End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) website
(http://www.elvsolutions.org).

There are many elements in the NVMSRP that are designed to measure
success and to evaluate its effectiveness.  One year following the
effective date of the MOU and each year thereafter, the parties or their
designees and EPA agreed to meet to review the effectiveness of the
program at the State level based upon recovery and capture rates.  The
parties to the agreement will use the results to improve the performance
of the program and to explore implementation of a range of options in
that effort.  Two and one-half years from the inception of the program,
the parties agreed to meet and review overall program effectiveness and
performance.  This review will include discussion of the number of
switches that have been collected and what factors have contributed to
program effectiveness.

We note here that the Administrator is committed to evaluating the
effectiveness of the approved program on a continuing basis and is a
party to the agreement that established the NMVSRP.  The parties
(including the Administrator) recently reviewed the program’s
effectiveness after 1 year.  The 1-year review showed reasonable
progress, with recycling programs now available in every State.  The
national program was slightly ahead of the schedule projected for
start-up.  We now expect switch removals to steadily increase over the
next year as these programs begin to fully operate.  If the
Administrator finds the program to be ineffective at the next scheduled
review under the MOU, or at any time as provided in the rule, the
Administrator may disapprove the program in whole or in part (e.g., for
a particular State), and participation in the program would no longer be
a compliance option, leaving foundry owners or operators obligated to
develop site-specific programs for EPA approval in order to meet the
requirements of this rule.  Under the site-specific program, it would
fall on the foundry owner or operator to provide a detailed accounting
of switches removed and vehicles processed from all of their scrap
providers to enable the Administrator or permitting authority to
evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the switch removal
requirements.  The somewhat lower documentation feature of the NVMSRP
provides a strong incentive to all of the parties involved in switch
removal to make every effort to ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a
continuing basis.  However, if the national program were to prove
unsatisfactory and be subsequently disapproved as a compliance option,
the burden would be on the foundry owner or operator to implement a
site-specific approach.  In either case (whether a national program or
site-specific program), we have codified an approach that provides
accountability and measures of effectiveness.

 	A key element of measuring the success of the program is maintaining a
database of participants that has detailed contact information;
documentation showing when the participant joined the program (or
started submitting mercury switches); records of all submissions by the
participant including date, number of mercury switches; and confirmation
that the participant has submitted mercury switches as expected.
Another important element is aggregated information to be updated on a
quarterly basis, including progress reports, summaries of the number of
program participants by State, individual program participants, and
records of State and national totals for the number of switches and the
amount of mercury removed.  The program is also estimating the number of
motor vehicles recycled.  The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during
the first year of the program, every 6 months in the second and third
year of the program, and annually thereafter.  The reports prepared by
ELVS will include the total number of dismantlers or other potential
participants identified; the total number of dismantlers or others
contacted; and the total number of dismantlers or others participating.
The annual report will include the total mercury (in pounds) and number
of mercury switches recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury,
number of mercury switches, and an estimated national capture rate, with
information organized by State, compared with the expected range of
mercury switch retirement rates for each State; and the total number and
identity of dismantlers or others dropped due to inactivity or
withdrawal from the program.  Mercury switch removal is already underway
– more than 1,855 pounds of mercury from more than 843,000 switches
have been recovered to date by program participants.  This represents
almost 20 percent of our estimated reduction in mercury emissions of 5
tons per year once the final rule is implemented.

	The commenters make valid points that the effectiveness of the rule
could be improved by incorporating certain elements that the steel
manufacturers have already agreed to in the MOU.  We have revised the
proposed rule to provide more specificity to the foundry owner or
operator responsibilities and to improve the effectiveness of
EPA-approved programs, which may include programs other than the NVMSRP.
 In addition, we are including these same requirements in the option for
developing a site-specific plan for switch removal.  The rule changes
include:

	•  Foundry owners or operators must develop and maintain onsite a
plan demonstrating the manner through which their facility is
participating in the EPA-approved program.  The plan must include
facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies,
and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for
each facility.

	•  Foundry owners or operators 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 of mercury
switches from end-of-life vehicles.  Upon the request of the permitting
authority, the owner or operator 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.

	•  Foundry owners or operators must conduct periodic inspections or
provide other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are aware
of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.

	In regard to the commenter’s question regarding estimates of the
recovery rate, the 80 percent minimum recovery rate is a goal that all
parties to the MOU agreed to work toward.  We recognize that 80 percent
recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two; however, the
parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at least four million
switches in the first 3 years of the NVMSRP and agreed to exceed this
amount if possible.  We believe that recovery of four million switches
(approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per switch) in the first 3
years is a good beginning for working toward recovery of 80 percent of
mercury switches.  It is necessary to acknowledge that there will be an
initial delay in many States that have recently joined the NVMSRP while
individual dismantlers accumulate sufficient switches to make a shipment
for recovery.  It has been estimated that it may take from 6 to 12
months to fill a switch collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS
website at www.elvsolutions.org, switches are typically collected in 3.5
gallon buckets that can hold up to 450 pellets).

	Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury switches is
not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a program.  The
Administrator can evaluate the success of an EPA-approved program at any
time, identify States where improvements might be needed, recommend
options for improving the program in a particular State, and if
necessary, disapprove the program as implemented in a State from being
used to demonstrate compliance with the rule based on an assessment of
this performance.  The evaluation would be based on progress reports
submitted to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury
switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and
percent of mercury switches recovered.  The Administrator can assess the
information with respect to the program’s goal for percent switch
recovery and trends in recovery rates.  For example, as the NVMSRP has
ramped up, switch recovery rates have increased from 241,000 switches in
2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 months of 2007.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that unlike the corresponding section of
the EAF rule, §63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed foundries rule does not
indicate or confirm that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved by the EPA
Administrator.  The commenter states that this omission is counter to
EPA’s intentions as stated in section V.8.A of the MOU and does not
provide a quick pathway for scrap providers to participate in a mercury
switch removal program.  The commenter stated that the final rule should
provide pre-approval of the NVMSRP and pre-approval of existing State
programs based on section VII.2.A.1.c of the MOU (which refers to
existing State programs in its articulation of the NVMSRP’s goal).
The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight existing State
programs (which account for about 1,900 participants) would eliminate
the need for scrap providers participating in those programs to obtain
EPA’s  approval of their site-specific plans under §63.10885(b)(1).

	Response:  We have revised the area source rule for iron and steel
foundries to be consistent with the rule for EAF steelmaking by adding
language confirming that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved by the EPA
Administrator.  We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery
program mandated by State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program
because they submitted documentation that the requirements are
equivalent to (or more stringent than) the approved national program.
No other States made such requests or submitted information showing
equivalency; consequently, we are not currently identifying other State
programs as EPA-approved in the final rule.

	Comment:  One commenter pointed to the provision in
§63.10885(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data.  The
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and
the effective date of the revocation provide sufficient time for the
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under §63.10885(b)(1)
and if there was a process in place for seeking reconsideration of the
revocation.

	Response:  The final rule requires the Administrator or delegated
agency to review and approve the site-specific plan. This is what the
proposed rule allowed because this authority was not among those listed
in the rule as not being delegated.  We believe the 90-day period is
adequate for the approval process.  The rule has no formal process for
seeking reconsideration of revocation.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the requirement in
§63.10885(b)(2)(iii) for the program sponsor to submit reports at least
yearly should be consistent with the corresponding requirement in the
proposed EAF rule.  The commenter noted that the proposed foundries rule
required that the report contain, among other data, the number of
vehicles processed while the proposed EAF rule requires “the estimated
number of vehicles processed.”  The commenter requested correction of
the proposed foundries rule to read “the estimated number of vehicles
processed”.

	Three commenters requested that EPA harmonize the language and content
of the proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule.  Each of these
commenters said that the proposed rule did not identify the NVMSRP as an
approved program while the EAF proposed rule does identify the NVMSRP as
an approved program.  Two commenters added that the MOU suggests that
the foundry rule should include and refer to the NVMSRP in its mercury
requirements.  One commenter objected to the requirement in
§63.10885(b)(1)(iv) for a mercury switch removal goal of 80 percent
because this requirement does not apply the goal to each provider as
does the proposed EAF rule.  The implication is that there can be
different mercury switch removal standards for different scrap providers
to foundries.  This language has the potential to create inequalities.
One commenter noted several differences between the proposed foundries
rule and the proposed EAF rule including different heading, different
phrasing of the same requirements, and specific differences in
requirements and definitions.

	Response:  We agree that the pollution prevention requirements for
mercury for iron and steel foundries should be consistent with those for
EAF steelmaking facilities because the technology for controlling
mercury emissions (i.e., mercury switch removal from end-of-life
vehicles) is the same for both source categories.  We are making
revisions to the final rule to ensure they are consistent.  Changes to
the site-specific plan for mercury switches include adding references to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and
corrective action, requiring an 80 percent goal for each scrap provider
and a separate semiannual report.  Changes to the option for approved
mercury programs include statements that the NVMSRP and the State of
Maine program for mercury switch removal are EPA-approved programs,
requiring reporting of an estimate of the number of vehicles processed
instead of the number of vehicles processed, adding parenthetical
mention of RCRA requirements, and adding a database requirement for
progress reports.  We have revised §63.10905 (Who implements and
enforces this subpart) to remove the phrase “in addition to EPA” and
make the list of nontransferable authorities the same in both rules.  We
have also revised §63.10906 (What definitions apply to this subpart?)
to add definitions applicable to the mercury switch removal program.

	Comment:  Fifteen commenters stated that it is technically and
economically unviable for small foundries to implement a site-specific
plan for mercury switch removal that meets the proposed rule
requirements.  Also, small foundries do not have significant buying
power to push suppliers to implement an EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program, according to the commenters.  While the commenters
support the mercury switch removal efforts, they believe that the
proposed rule requirements are unnecessarily onerous for foundries.  One
commenter stated they would support the mercury switch removal
provisions once 80 percent of scrap dealers are registered in the
Federal program.

	Response:  Only foundries that purchase shredded motor vehicle scrap
from non-program participants are required to prepare a site-specific
plan.  Most of the smaller area source foundries do not use shredded
motor vehicle scrap, so they would not be required to prepare a
site-specific plan for mercury switch removal.  Furthermore, as
indicated previously, we are providing area source foundries 2 years to
comply with the mercury switch removal program specifically because area
source foundries purchase much smaller quantities of scrap compared to
EAF steel mills.  By providing this additional compliance time, we
believe that the NVMSRP will be sufficiently mature that area source
foundries will be able to purchase motor vehicle scrap from participants
of the program.  Therefore, very few area source foundries will need to
prepare a site-specific plan for mercury switch removal as a consequence
of this final rule.  Based on our analysis, we do not expect any
foundries to incur a significant adverse economic impact as a result of
the mercury switch removal requirements in this final rule.  The
commenters provided no additional information on the specific
requirements they claim to be “unnecessarily onerous.”
Consequently, we made no direct revisions to the requirements for the
site-specific plan, if it is selected as the compliance option.

	Comment:  One commenter noted that scrap supply has been very tight and
the costs have doubled over the past year.  Another commenter estimated
that eliminating shredded auto scrap could cost the commenter’s
foundries approximately $4 million per year.

	Response:  We understand that the price of scrap has increased over the
past few years; however, the past increase and any future changes in
price will not be affected in any significant way by the rule
requirements for mercury switch removal.  We expect most facilities will
comply by participating in the NMVSRP and purchasing scrap only from
scrap providers who are also participants.  This program is
independently funded and administered by several stakeholders.
Consequently, there is no reason for the commenter to eliminate shredded
automobile scrap.

 	Comment:  One commenter stated the corrective action requirements
present significant obstacles to getting reasonable site-specific plans
approved.  The commenter also said that what constitutes an acceptable
plan will vary by State and region, resulting in uneven regulatory
burden and unfair competitive advantages.

	Response:  Corrective actions are an important component of the
site-specific plan to ensure that scrap providers are removing mercury
switches.  Corrective actions are not unique to the area source rule in
that iron and steel foundries impose specifications on scrap related to
quality and safety, and facilities take corrective actions when scrap
shipments do not meet these specifications.  The Administrator or
delegated authority is the appropriate entity for review and approval of
these plans, and the rule provides a clear description of the
requirements for the plans that can be used as criteria for approval or
disapproval.

	Comment:  Sixteen commenters stated that the mercury switch removal
requirements should not apply to automotive scrap, such as brake rotors
and pump housings, that do not contain mercury switches.  Two commenters
recommended that EPA clarify the type of scrap subject to the metallic
scrap requirements by describing it as “shredded auto bodies” or
“post-consumer automotive body scrap.”  One commenter requested
specific exemptions from the mercury switch requirements for foundries
that melt only pre-consumer scrap or that the rule be written to apply
to only those melting recycled auto bodies.  One commenter requested
that the proposed rule include a fourth option that specifically
excludes scrap that does not come in contact with mercury from the
mercury switch removal provisions.

	Response:  We have added a definition of the term “motor vehicles
scrap” to the final rule.  “Motor vehicle scrap” means vehicle or
automobile bodies, including automobile body hulks, that have been
processed through a shredder.  This definition does not include
automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous vehicle parts such as
wheels, bumpers, or other components that do not contain mercury
switches.  We have also clarified the rule by adding provisions specific
to scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.  The final rule
requires that for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment, the
foundry must procure all scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap
according to the requirements in §63.10885(b)(4) of the final rule.
Section 63.10885(b)(4) requires the owner or operator to certify in the
notification of compliance status that the scrap used at the foundry
does not contain motor vehicle scrap and to keep records to document the
certification.

	Comment:  Four commenters stated other products that contain mercury
beside automotive switches are included in the scrap metal used by
foundries and should be covered by the mercury requirements.  Three of
the commenters said that components in household and commercial
appliances, sump and bilge pumps, heating and air conditioning units,
and industrial equipment (e.g., tilt switches, thermometers, flame
sensors, float sensors, relays, switches, barometers, manometers,
thermometers, floats, and other types of sensing and control equipment)
also contain mercury and should be included in a removal program.  This
could be done by expansion of the NVSMRP or through the establishment
and funding by mercury product manufacturers and the steelmaking sector
and/or collection programs targeting other products that contain
mercury.

	One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be expanded to
require the removal of all automotive switches, not just 80 percent of
convenience light switches.  Another commenter stated that the rule
should expand the scope of the switch program to include any original
equipment or aftermarket mercury tilt switch installed in a vehicle and
used in convenience lighting, anti-lock braking systems (ABS) sensors,
security systems, active ride control, or other applications.

	Response:  During the development of the proposed EAF rule, the EPA
considered the removal of other mercury-containing components in
automobiles, such as switches in ABS, and determined the option was not
justified as a beyond-the floor standard (72 FR 53824).  Similarly, we
conclude that removal of these sources of mercury does not represent
GACT for iron and steel foundries.  These sensors are considerably more
difficult and time consuming to remove than are convenience light
switches, and they contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of the
mercury in end-of-life vehicles comes from convenience light switches).
The commenters provided no data or rationale to support that the removal
of other sources of mercury from the scrap supply was economically and
technologically feasible for foundries or that their removal should
represent GACT.

	Most mercury-containing components in appliances were phased out
several years ago, and any that might remain would contribute very
little mercury to the scrap supply compared to switches in automobiles.
While some ABS contained mercury sensors, these too have been phased out
and were much less common than mercury convenience light switches.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the NVMSRP is a voluntary program
in his State and not all suppliers participate.  The final rule should
require effective participation by suppliers or compliance with the
national program.

	Two commenters stated that the requirements of the mercury switch
removal program must be incorporated in air permits, and the provisions
must be clearly understood and enforceable by air agencies and their
counterparts in other media programs.  If these provisions are not
explicit in the program, the pollution prevention approach will not be
effective.

	Two commenters claimed that EPA has not taken the NVMSRP into account
when developing these regulations in the development of this rule as
required by the MOU.  The commenters stated that the MOU was written as
a nonbinding contract for EPA and several industries for the voluntary
removal and disposal of mercury switches while the requirements in the
rule are mandatory.

	Response:  Although participation in the NVMSRP is voluntary, the
pollution prevention standard for mercury establishes clear mandatory
requirements for the removal of mercury switches to reduce mercury
emissions from iron and steel foundries.  Participation in the NVMSRP is
only one option for compliance, and although we expect it to be the
preferred compliance approach, each of the compliance approaches have
common requirements to ensure switch removal and to provide an
accounting of the number of switch removed and number of vehicles
processed.  The number of scrap providers participating in the NVMSRP
has increased steadily since its inception, and as the area source rules
for iron and steel foundries and EAF steelmaking are implemented, there
will be additional incentives for many more scrap providers to
participate to maintain their customer base.

	The rule requirements are explicit and should be clearly understood and
enforceable by air agencies.  Although the final rule exempts facilities
that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to obtain a
permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already have a title
V permit generally must include the requirements of this rule through a
permit reopening or at renewal according to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 70 and the title V permit program.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA must address ways to encourage
or require mercury removal from scrap destined for export.

	Response:  This area source rule addresses mercury in scrap destined
for iron and steel foundries, and removal of mercury from scrap destined
for export in not within the scope of the rule.  However, we expect that
the NVMSRP and State programs for mercury switch removal will result in
the reduction in mercury in scrap for all users, including scrap that is
exported.

	Comment:  One commenter recommended that a sunset clause be added to
the mercury switch removal requirements as mercury switches have been
phased-out of new automobiles.

	Response:  Our information indicates that there is a 10-year supply of
end-of-life vehicles that may contain mercury switches.  Consequently,
we do not think it is appropriate to add a sunset provision.  However,
review of the mercury requirements will be appropriate when the 8-year
review of the standard is conducted.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the requirement to inspect the
scrap poses a safety risk to the personnel inspecting the scrap.

 	Response:  Our information indicates that many facilities already
inspect incoming scrap and have established procedures for doing so
safely.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to direct that
every recycling facility should be removing the same amount of switches
because there is no mechanism that can accurately gauge if facilities
are removing the maximum number of switches.  The commenter explained
that a facility can be removing only 10 switches per month and be
maximizing their removal while another facility can be removing 1,000
switches per month and only removing a portion of available switches
based on the age and origin of the vehicles handled by the facility.
Attempting to determine the recovery rate necessitates having both the
number of switches recovered and the total number of vehicles processed
but the number of vehicles processed is confidential business
information (CBI).  The commenter stated that the rate could vary from
facility to facility and not be indicative of the facilities level of
participation in an approved program.

	Another commenter said that the requirements in
§63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require scrap
providers to divulge CBI or to provide sensitive information to foundry
operators to comply.

	Response:  The NVMSRP does not require that facilities remove the same
number of switches.  There are two key statistics in determining the
recovery rate of mercury switches:  the number of switches removed and
the number of vehicles processed.  This information is essential in
determining the progress towards meeting the recovery goal of 80
percent.  The percent of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined
in the MOU) is the number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life
vehicles divided by the total mercury switch population in end-of-life
vehicles in a given time period (e.g., each year of the program) times
100.  Furthermore, the 80 percent goal recognizes that the total mercury
switch population is dependent on the age of the vehicles processed.
This approach accounts for the differences in the capacity or processing
rate of different facilities, which is the subject of the comment.

	It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and foundry operator
to provide the information required by the rule and to establish
procedures if necessary to protect confidential information.  The
requirements in the final rule include:  (1) periodic inspections or
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and
dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove mercury
switches; (2) estimates of the number of switches removed; and (3)
semiannual progress reports that provide the number of switches or
weight of mercury removed, number of vehicles processed, estimate of the
percent of switches removed, and certification of proper disposal of the
switches.  This information is an essential monitoring component of the
rule to measure the effectiveness of a facility’s pollution prevention
program.  The information on number of vehicles processed can be
aggregated for a facility if it is important not to reveal the number of
vehicles processed by a given scrap provider.  We do not see nor did the
commenter identify exactly what component of the requested information
would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that the information is
not emissions data and there is CBI involved, EPA and the permitting
authorities have established procedures for managing and safeguarding
CBI and will, of course, utilize them.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that in §63.10885(b)(1)(i) and (ii),
the requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used
to make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of inaccessible
switches.  The commenter suggests replacing “mercury switches” with
“accessible mercury switches.”

	Response:  We have defined mercury switch to include only those
switches that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism.  Our
information indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily
removed, and it is important to the success of the pollution prevention
program that they be removed.  Consequently, we are not adding the
additional requirement that they be “accessible,” which would
introduce additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be
made as to what is accessible.

	Comment:  One commenter stated the requirement in §63.10885(b)(1)(B)
for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets specifications does
not seem to allow for uncertainty or error.  The commenter suggested
that the language read “Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap
providers that to the best of their knowledge, motor vehicle scrap
provided to the facility meets the scrap specification”.

	Response:  We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter is
necessary because the phrase “to the best of their knowledge” is
subjective and provides no improvement.  The foundry owner or operator
must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the scrap meets
specifications.

	Comment:  One commenter said the requirement in §63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C)
for a 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 should be replaced with
appropriate steps “to encourage the removal of accessible mercury
switches from motor vehicles to be shredded”.

	Response:  We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to minimize
the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is necessary to
ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution prevention
requirements.

	Comment:  One commenter asked what is meant by taking corrective action
in §63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(D) since the nonconforming actions are committed
by different parties?  Does a scrap provider have any recourse when
corrective actions are deemed necessary by a foundry?

	One commenter stated that any corrective action plan elements approved
by the Administrator should reference MOU sections V.3.H and V.7.C,
which defines good faith participation as “the actual removal of
switches or the implementation of source control programs to assure
removal of switches prior to receipt”.

	Response:  The procedures for taking corrective actions must be
described by the owner or operator in the site-specific plan, and these
procedures may vary depending on the type of scrap, scrap provider, and
other factors, some of which may be unique to the facility.  The concept
is not a new one because foundry owners or operators have historically
taken corrective actions when scrap does not meet their specifications.
The area source rule places no direct requirements on the scrap
provider; however, we expect that the scrap provider would work with
customers (the iron and steel foundry owners or operators) to resolve
any questions of recourse with respect to corrective actions.

	Comment:  One commenter objected to the requirement in
§63.10885(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of
end-of-life vehicles.  The commenter stated that to impose such
burdensome requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far
exceeds the Agency’s regulatory authority, poses CBI concerns, and
imposes excessive paperwork and recordkeeping requirements on the scrap
provider.  These comments also apply to §63.10885(b)(1)(v) because the
requirements are likely to compel scrap providers to provide information
to foundry operators to comply.  Another commenter stated that it is
unreasonable to burden foundries to ensure scrap providers and
dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove and dispose of
mercury switches.  The commenter also noted that foundries would not be
able to obtain information on the number of mercury switches or weight
of mercury removed because most foundries use scrap brokers and are a
step or two removed from the dismantlers.  Another commenter stated that
it is inappropriate for EPA to regulate end-users and that EPA should
directly regulate the scrap sellers and processors with respect to
mercury switch removal.

	Response:  The burden imposed by the Agency is on the foundry owner or
operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a critical
monitoring component of the rule.  The owner or operator in turn must
require this information from scrap providers, and if such information
is not obtained, the owner or operator could be found in violation of
the rule.  It is in the interest of the scrap provider, the owner or
operator, the public health, and the environment that such information
be obtained to ensure that mercury releases to the environment are
reduced by the removal of mercury switches.

	Comment:  One commenter objected to the credit allowed in
§63.0085(b)(1)(iv) for calculating the 80 percent mercury switch
removal goal for site-specific plans.  The commenter objected to the
credit because it allows counting of mercury removed from components
other than convenience lighting while the approved plan requires only
the removal of mercury switches from convenience lighting.  The
commenter stated that the provision is not consistent with the MOU,
which states that only mercury switches used for convenience lighting
will be counted for purposes of measuring program performance.  The
commenter argued that site-specific plans should not be held to a higher
standard than the NVMSRP.

	Response:  While it is true that only switches from convenience
lighting apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS
accepts switches from anti-lock brake systems and the automobile or
scrap recyclers that remove them are paid the incentive fee of $1.00 per
switch.  We believe that this provides an incentive to remove switches
from anti-lock brake systems as well as for convenience lighting.  In
the requirements for site-specific plans, other sources of mercury are
included in determining the 80 percent goal, such as in anti-lock brake
systems, security systems, active ride control, and other applications.
Inclusion of these other components in the site-specific programs
provides an incentive for their removal.  These mercury-containing
components contribute less mercury (13 percent compared to 87 percent
from convenience light switches), and they are more difficult to locate,
identify, and remove.  Mercury-containing components in anti-lock brake
systems will be the components other than convenience light switches
that are most often removed.  The removal of these components requires
removing the rear seat and dismantling the anti-lock brake system.  We
believe that if a dismantler chooses to take the time to remove and
recover mercury components from anti-lock brake systems or other
components, they should receive some type of credit for doing so, thus
they can include them in their 80 percent minimum recovery goal.

C.  Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries

1.  Subcategorization of Metal Melting Furnaces

	Comment:  Five commenters stated that EPA should also consider a 5 ton
per hour (tph) melting capacity threshold for each EIF as the most
appropriate way to minimize impacts on small area source foundries if
the per furnace basis is used.  Another commenter recommended a size
threshold 5 tph for EIF if the per furnace basis was used.  In addition,
two commenters opposed the proposed rule and asked EPA to reconsider the
applicability to melting processes or allowable emissions.  As discussed
in section IV.F of this preamble, several commenters stated that control
of metal melting furnaces and/or EIF was not cost-effective.

Response:  We considered EIF specific thresholds, but concluded that
these were not appropriate for several reasons.  First, as described
previously, we increased the size threshold for large area source
foundries to 20,000 tpy.  The increased size threshold more effectively
reduced burden to the smaller foundries than an EIF specific cut-off.
Second, we could not identify a strong rationale as to why smaller
induction furnaces at foundries with production greater than 20,000 tpy
should be subcategorized.  A significant portion of EIFs at foundries
greater than 20,000 tpy metal melting capacity were controlled,
regardless of the EIF size.  Finally, emissions from EIF furnaces are
much better correlated with the total melt production than the size of
the furnace.  Smaller furnaces can have higher emissions than larger
furnaces if they process more metal.  Therefore, we determined that an
EIF-specific threshold was not appropriate and is not included in this
final rule.

2.  Emission Standards

	Comment:  One commenter stated that because area source standards will
not be subject to residual risk standards, it is important to regulate
emissions of particulate matter (PM) and HAP as well as possible under
this rule.

Response:  We agree.  As discussed in the proposal preamble, we
evaluated more stringent emission limits, but found that these were not
cost-effective for existing sources.  Although we increased the size
threshold in this final rule, we rejected higher thresholds or
additional EIF-specific thresholds specifically to regulate emissions of
PM and HAP as well as possible, while considering the costs of these
regulations.

Comment:  One commenter noted that in the proposal preamble EPA refers
to the emission limit as pounds per ton of metal melted, but the
regulatory language in §63.10895(b)(1) refers to “per ton of metal
charged.”  The commenter requested clarification as to EPA’s intent,
and recommended the use of “per ton metal charged” as the charge
into the furnace is more amenable to measurement.

Response:  We agree with the commenter.  We intended to require
foundries to measure and record the tons of metal charged to the furnace
as indicated in the proposed regulatory language.  Although we commonly
refer to this as tons of metal melted, we acknowledge that there is a
subtle difference and we have tried to consistently refer to “tons
metal charged” as the basis of the standards in this final rule and
preamble.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the PM emissions limit (0.8 pound
of PM per ton of metal charged) is too low because some existing wet
scrubbers cannot achieve this emission limit and because the
alternatives to improve the emission performance of these systems would
be very costly.

Response:  The available data clearly indicate that the 0.8 lb/ton
emission limit is easily achievable with a well performing wet scrubber
or baghouse control system.  The available data also indicated that a
small percentage of cupola wet scrubbers would need to be upgraded in
order to meet this emission limit.  We have considered the costs of
these upgrades and determined that these upgrades are reasonable for the
large area source foundries.  GACT need not be an emission limit that
all wet scrubbers can meet, regardless of their design or performance.
We selected the 0.8 lb/ton PM limit as GACT because this level of
performance represented the typical performance of the generally
available control technologies used to reduce PM and metal HAP emissions
from foundry melting furnaces at reasonable cost.

	Comment:  One commenter noted that §63.10895(a) requires “each”
melting furnace to operate a capture system, but §63.10898(e)(3)
provides default emission factors for uncontrolled EIF not equipped with
a capture system for use in emissions averaging calculation.  The
commenter requested clarification that capture and collection systems
are not required for “each” melting furnace.

Response:  We agree.  We have revised the language in §63.10895(a) of
the proposed rule and §63.10895(b) of the final rule to indicate that
“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.”

	Comment:  One commenter requested elaboration on EPA’s intent when
referencing “accepted engineering standards published by ACGIH” for
capture systems.

	Response:  Accepted engineering standards such as design procedures for
local exhaust hoods and exhaust systems are included in each annual
edition of Industrial Ventilation:  A Manual of Recommended Practice
published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH).  The purpose of the rule requirement is to require
foundries to install and operate capture systems using appropriate
design factors for the hood and furnace emissions so that the capture
systems will operate properly.

Comment:  One commenter said that he assumed the PM emissions limit
applies only to melting (SCC 30400303), but it would be impossible to
segregate these emissions from charge handling and inoculation (SCC
30400315 and 30400310), and stated that this issue requires further
evaluation.

Response:  In general, all activities that are performed in the metal
melting furnaces are subject to the emission limits.  These include, but
are not limited to:  charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging,
and tapping.  We have provided more detail regarding the operating
conditions for the performance tests to clarify this issue.  Generally,
inoculation is performed in the transfer ladle and transfer ladle
operations are subject only to the building opacity limit.  However, if
inoculation occurs in the melting furnace, then inoculation emissions
are subject to the overall furnace emission limit.

	Comment:  Two commenters argued that the proposed opacity limit is more
restrictive than the major source rule since it does not include an
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity.
The commenters stated that the area source rule should not be more
stringent than the major source foundry rule, which was based on MACT,
and recommended that EPA include, at a minimum, an allowance for one
6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity.  Another commenter
stated that the opacity limit should not be based on MACT, but on GACT,
which the commenter believes would be 30 percent or 40 percent average
opacity.

	Response:  We agree that the proposed opacity limit should not be more
stringent than the corresponding MACT standard.  We reviewed the State
and local agency opacity requirements for selected States with
significant foundry populations.  There are several States that require
20 percent opacity, but nearly all of these State programs provide an
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour; allowances provided in
different State regulations include:  27, 30, 40 and 60 percent opacity
limits. Although we do not agree with the second commenter that a limit
of 30 to 40 percent opacity limit would represent GACT, we do agree that
one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity reflects GACT
for area source foundries.  In response to the commenters’ concerns,
we have revised the proposed opacity limit to include the allowance for
one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity.

3.  Monitoring

	Comment:  Eighteen commenters said that EPA should allow visible
emissions (VE) observations to document compliance with the fugitive
emissions limit in order to reduce burden on small foundries.  One of
the commenters stated that EPA underestimated the burden associate with
Method 9 observations.  The commenters recommended that if visible
emissions were observed, a Method 9 test could be conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit.  Another commenter stated
that EPA should require VE observations on a weekly basis (noncertified
individual would be acceptable under certain conditions) in addition to
the semiannual Method 9 readings because weekly observations would be
more effective for compliance than a certified reading occurring twice a
year.

	Response:  We agree with the commenters that allowing VE observations
by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7), with a subsequent test by
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) is a reasonable alternative for
determining compliance with the opacity limit for fugitive emissions
from foundry operations and may reduce compliance costs.  In response,
we have revised Table 1 of the final rule to include such an
alternative.  The alternative allows foundries to conduct the semiannual
performance tests using Method 22 instead of Method 9.  The results of
the Method 22 test demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit if no
visible emissions occur for at least 90 percent of the 1-hour
observation period.  If visible fugitive emissions from foundry
operations occur for more than 10 percent of the Method 22 observation
period (i.e., more than a cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-hour period),
the owner or operator must conduct a Method 9 test as soon as possible,
but no later than 15 days after the Method 22 test to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the requirement to install and
maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) is potentially
costly and unnecessary.  The commenter suggested that visual checks and
manual recording of the operating parameter values once per shift as
used in existing title V permits be allowed instead of a CPMS.

	Response:  This commenter objected to CPMS as too costly and
unnecessary.  As discussed below, other commenters objected to the
proposed operating parameters for baghouses, wet scrubbers, and
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) that would be monitored.  In response
to these comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring provisions
for PM control devices.  For PM control devices at existing affected
sources, the final rule requires the owner or operator to conduct
initial and periodic inspections of each PM control device.  These
inspection requirements are included in many title V permits for PM
control devices.  We have deleted the proposed inspection and monitoring
requirements for fabric filters that required pressure drop monitoring
of baghouses.  Bag leak detection systems are required for fabric
filters used at new affected sources.  The owner or operator of an
existing affected source may choose to comply with the requirements for
bag leak detection systems or the new inspection requirements.

	We have also revised the proposed monitoring requirements for wet
scrubbers and ESP to apply to new affected sources instead of existing
affected sources.  The final rule requires CPMS to measure the 3-hour
pressure drop and water flow rate for each wet scrubber.  For ESP, the
owner or operator must maintain the voltage and secondary current (or
total power output) to the control device at or above the level
established during the initial or subsequent performance test.  Table 2
of the final rule requires the operating limit for a wet scrubber to be
based on the average pressure drop and average scrubber water flow rate
measured during the performance test; for an ESP, the operating limit is
to be based on the minimum hourly average measurements.

	Comment:  Four commenters objected to basing the baghouse pressure drop
operating limit on the pressure drop range observed during the
performance test.  The commenters stated that baghouses can operate
effectively over a range of pressure drops and a single test is too
short to encounter the full range of pressure drops that are normally
encountered.  The commenters recommended using manufacturer’s
recommended operating ranges or historical performance for the baghouse
pressure drop operating limits.  One commenter suggested volumetric flow
rate or static pressure upstream of the baghouse may be more appropriate
operating parameters to monitor.  Four commenters objected to the
baghouse pressure drop operating limit being determined across each
baghouse cell.  The commenters recommended using the pressure drop
across the entire baghouse.  One commenter said that baghouse pressure
drop varies with overall building ventilation and balancing air flow in
the foundry is a balancing act, and varies with the outdoor temperature.
 The commenter stated that it is impossible to capture these scenarios
during a performance test.

	Response:  We agree with the commenters that pressure drop is not a
good indicator of baghouse performance.  The requirement for pressure
drop monitoring originated from baghouse maintenance requirements
included in title V permits.  As discussed above, we have replaced these
provisions in the proposed rule with other inspection and maintenance
requirements.

	Comment:  Three commenters objected to basing the wet scrubber pressure
drop operating limit on the pressure drop range observed during the
performance test for the same reasons as their comments on baghouse
pressure drop operating limits.  The commenters argued that like
baghouses, scrubbers can operate effectively over a range of pressure
drops and a single test is too short to encounter the full range of
pressure drops that are normally encountered.  The commenters
recommended using manufacturer’s recommendations or operation history
for setting the operating limits.  One commenter extended these comments
to electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).

Response:  We disagree with the commenters.  In performance tests
conducted on a cupola wet scrubber, we noted a strong (inverse)
correlation between the wet scrubber pressure drop and the PM emissions
from the control system.  Relatively small changes in the pressure drop
altered the emissions by a factor of two.  A foundry may always re-test
the control system at new (lower) operating limits if the operating
limits determined during the initial test are too restrictive, but the
foundry must demonstrate that they can meet the emissions limit at that
lower operating limit.  That said, we recognize that many existing
foundries are not equipped with CPMS.  Therefore, we have revised the
monitoring requirements for existing sources, but we retain the
requirements for CPMS for new sources.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that new sources should not be required
to install bag leak detection systems, but should be allowed to monitor
their baghouses similar to existing sources.  The commenter requested
further explanation on EPA’s position on this issue.

	Response:  New sources should be able to employ improved monitoring
technology.  Wherever possible, we request that new sources use
automated systems that will measure and record operating parameters (or
emissions).  Over time, we expect that this approach will improve
monitoring technology and reduce costs for existing and new sources.

4.  Operation and Maintenance Requirements

	Comment:  Two commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the
requirement to have a written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan
because writing the plan is an unnecessary burden (in the range of
$2,000 to $2,500 for a small facility, according to the commenters) with
little environmental benefit.  According to the commenters, monitoring
and recording operating parameters are sufficient to demonstrate
compliance and this can be done without a written plan.

	Response:  We have reduced the burden associated with preparation of
the O&M plan by revising the monitoring requirements.  Several portions
of the O&M plan requirements are related the operation and maintenance
of bag leak detection systems and CPMS.  The final rule requires these
monitoring systems only for new sources.  We continue to believe that an
O&M plan provides EPA and foundry representatives with a single source
of information on monitoring and maintenance responsibilities.  In the
development of the proposed requirements for the O&M plan, we included
many of the industry comments and recommendations for requirements that
were reasonable for area source facilities.

	Comment:  One commenter requested that EPA expand the O&M plan to
include actions to be taken in the event of an opacity exceedance.  If
after a specified time with no opacity exceedances, the facility could
be allowed to make weekly observations with a non-certified individual
instead of Method 9 readings twice a year.

Response:  If the foundry exceeds the opacity limit, then that foundry
is out of compliance with the emissions limit and could be subject to
enforcement actions.  Although we considered more frequent visible
emission observations, the visible emission observations could not be
tied to the opacity limit.  Therefore, if visible emissions were
observed, an opacity observation would be needed to verify that the
visible emissions did not exceed the opacity limit.  This would greatly
increase the burden associated with the opacity requirements, which many
commenters suggested were already too burdensome.  A foundry may use
weekly visible emission observations as means to ensure compliance with
the opacity limit if they choose, and the foundry may include such
observations and corrective actions to be taken within their O&M plan if
they choose.

	Comment:  Three commenters stated that the daily check of the
compressed air supply for a pulse-jet baghouse was not necessary.  The
commenters argued that static pressure exceeding allowable ranges would
be a better indicator of a problem and the need for corrective action
measures.  Three commenters stated that the monthly visual bag
inspections are not necessary, and suggested that semi-annual
inspections would be sufficient.  Similarly, the commenters recommended
that the quarterly inspection of baghouse physical integrity and fans
are unnecessary and that semiannual inspections would be sufficient.

	Response:  The commenters’ concerns have been addressed because we
have removed the baghouse inspection and maintenance requirements from
the proposed rule.  These requirements have been replaced with more
general inspection and maintenance requirements for PM control devices
(baghouses, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators).

	Comment:  One commenter requested guidance on what an acceptable alarm
set-point is when using a continuous bag leak detection system.

	Response:  The alarm set point will vary according to the design of the
equipment.  For additional information on bag leak detection systems
that operate on the triboelectric effect, we encourage the commenter to
review “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance”, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) publication PM98164676.  This document is available from the
NTIS, 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.  This document also
may be available on the TTN at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html .

	Comment:  One commenter stated that, while 30 days may be sufficient
time to implement minor repairs (i.e., time between inspections), some
repairs may require more time (e.g., to solicit contract bids, perform
engineering analysis, and install equipment).  The commenter requested
that the rule allow additional time for foundries to complete necessary
repairs.

	Response:  In response to the commenter’s concern, we have added
additional time to implement repairs to capture systems.  The final rule
requires that repairs be completed as soon as practicable, but no later
than 90 days.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that capture system requirements should
be included in the O&M plan because PM build-up in capture systems,
particularly for batch processes such and EIFs, could significantly
reduce capture efficiency.  The commenter recommended that EPA include
capture system in the inspections required for control systems.
Specifically, §63.10985(a) be revised to require “... Each capture
and collection system must meet and maintain…”; §63.10896(a) be
revised to require an O&M plan “.. for each capture and control
device…”; add a paragraph §63.10896(a)(6) to require “Information
on the inspection of the capture system components, including, but not
limited to, emission intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork,
dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans, to assure there is not material
build-up impeding flow to the control device.”; and revising
§63.10897(c)(8) to “Inspect emission intake devices, hoods,
enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans for wear.”

	Response:  We appreciate the commenter’s suggestions.  While capture
systems have been included in the O&M plans for major source rules, we
have not included requirements for capture systems in the area source
rule as one way of reducing compliance costs for area source foundries.
In addition, the suggested revisions to §63.10897(c)(8) are not needed
as inspection requirements for the capture system are already specified
in §63.10897(e).

5.  Testing Requirements

	Comment:  One commenter requested clarification on how 1 hour
performance tests are to be conducted on EIFs that operate in a batch
mode for 25 minutes.  Additionally, the commenter inquired if there were
operating condition requirements, such as operating within 10 percent of
the stated melt capacity, for the performance test or if the operating
conditions were not relevant because the emission limit is normalized by
the melt rate.  Another commenter requested guidance on methods for
measuring emissions per ton charges for line frequency furnace shops,
and noted concern on how a 1-hour emission test would provide a
representative estimate of the emissions from a series of EIFs all
cycling differently.

	Response:  In this final rule, we have clarified that “For electric
arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces, sample only during
normal production conditions, which may include, but are not limited to
the following cycles:  charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging,
and tapping.”  For the 25-minute batch time cited by the first
commenter, approximately two batches would completed during the 1-hour
run.  If multiple EIFs are all cycling differently, the 1-hour run would
capture different cycles for the different furnaces.  In the course of
three 1-hour runs, data for several complete cycles will be collected.
We do not specify operation within 10 percent of the stated melt
capacity of the furnace because, as noted by the commenter, emission
limits are normalized by the tons of metal charged.  However, the
melting rates are required to be indicative of normal production
conditions.

	Comment:  One commenter said that when there are many furnaces and
other unregulated sources exhausting to a baghouse, the performance test
will be problematic because it will be difficult to identify suitable
test ports that are not influenced by other disturbances.  The cost of
duct rework, according to the commenter, is approximately $100,000.

	Response:  First, we have included provisions for determining
compliance with the emissions limit in situations where regulated and
non-regulated emission streams are mixed.  We recognize that these
provisions may not be suitable for all duct conditions.  However, one
can always demonstrate compliance with the emission limit on the
combined stream.  Using a baghouse control system, it is likely that the
baghouse exhaust can be used to demonstrate compliance with the PM
limit, even when other PM sources (such as sand handling) are included.
Moreover, we have also provided an alternative metal HAP emission limit.
 As emission limits were not set for other PM emission sources at the
foundry precisely because these PM sources do not contain appreciable
metal HAP, we expect that the baghouse exhaust can be used to
demonstrate compliance with the metal HAP emission limit, regardless of
what other unregulated streams may also be controlled by the furnaces’
baghouse.

	Comment:  One commenter recommended that EPA eliminate the requirement
to re-test every 5 years for PM emissions provided that initial results
were less than 75 percent of the emission limit and no process changes
are made.

Response:  We considered this alternative, but concluded that
elimination of the subsequent tests (every 5 years) was not appropriate.
 First, we have reduced the monitoring burden for the control systems in
this final rule compared to the proposed rule.  Therefore, the
subsequent tests are necessary to assure on-going compliance with the
emission limits.  Second, the subsequent tests do not pose an
unreasonable compliance cost to large (greater than 20,000 tpy) area
source foundries.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that, in order to perform an emissions
test on the EIFs at his facility, the plant would have to install a
capture and blower system that costs almost $1 million just to determine
whether or not they are already in compliance.

Response:  We recognize that testing uncontrolled EIFs is difficult.
For this reason, we have added to the final rule special provisions for
testing EIFs.  For EIFs equipped with emission control devices, this
final rule allows existing foundries to use the performance test results
for one EIF to demonstrate compliance for other EIFs provided the other
furnaces are similar with respect to the type of emission control device
used, composition of the scrap charged, furnace size, and melting
temperature.  For uncontrolled EIFs, the final rule allows the use of
test results from another furnace to demonstrate compliance if the test
results are prior to any control device, and the furnaces are similar
with respect to the composition of scrap charged, furnace size, and
melting temperature.  In addition, for EIFs without emission capture
systems, we have clarified in the final rule that existing foundries may
install a temporary enclosure for the purpose of sampling emissions.  A
permanent enclosure and capture system is not required for the purpose
of testing.

	Comment:  One commenter noted that the preamble stated that performance
tests are required within 180 days of promulgation, and stated that this
was inadequate time to install controls and demonstrate compliance since
it takes 180 days to get a construction permit.

	Response:  We have revised the preamble to the final rule to state that
the owner or operator must conduct the performance test within 180 days
of the compliance date, not the effective date.

D.  Implementation and Enforcement

	Comment:  Seven commenters supported EPA’s proposal to exempt area
source foundries from title V permit requirements because requiring
title V permits would add significantly to the compliance costs with
little to no additional environmental benefit.  Two commenters stated
that the requirements of the mercury switch removal program must be
incorporated in air permits and the provisions must be clearly
understood and enforceable by air agencies and their counterparts in
other media programs.  If these provisions are not explicit in the
program, the pollution prevention approach will not be effective.

	Response:  We did not receive any adverse comments on our decision to
exempt this area source category from title V permitting requirements.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 52997,
September 17, 2007) we found that the cost of title V permitting would
be burdensome and the cost would not be justified because there would be
little to no potential gains in compliance if title V permits were
required.  We also concluded that title V permitting was unnecessary to
assure compliance with the NESHAP because the statutory requirements for
implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP by EPA and the delegated
States are sufficient to assure compliance without title V permits.  In
addition, we have added provisions to the final rule to improve the
enforceability and effectiveness of the mercury switch removal program.
The commenters did not provide any new information to change these
conclusions.  Therefore, we are not revising the final rule to require
title V permits for the mercury switch removal requirements.  Although
the final rule exempts facilities that do not have a title V permit from
the requirement to obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule,
sources that already have a title V permit generally must include the
requirements of this rule through a permit reopening or at renewal
according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit
program.

	Comment:  One commenter questioned the addition of the phrase “in
addition to EPA” to the provisions for implementation and enforcement
in §63.10905.  The commenter said this language (which is not in the
EAF rule) suggests that two separate entities have equal implementation
and enforcement authorities except for nontransferable authorities
listed in §63.10905(a).  The commenter stated that this dualism would
create legal issues and could create practical problems for
stakeholders.  The commenter requests that this phrase be removed from
the final rule.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter and have removed this phrase
from the final rule.

	Comment:  One commenter noted that §63.10905(c) refers to the
authorities which cannot be delegated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)
of this section, then lists (c)(1) through (5).  The commenter also asks
why this rule has two extra non-transferable authorities concerning
opacity that are not in the EAF rule.

	Response:  We have revised the proposed rule to cite paragraph (c)(5)