[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 176 (Thursday, September 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56080-56106]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14143]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 176

September 10, 2020

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron and
Steel Foundries Major Source Residual Risk and Technology Review and
Area Source Technology Review; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 176 / Thursday, September 10, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373; FRL-10010-46-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT30

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron
and Steel Foundries Major Source Residual Risk and Technology Review
and Area Source Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the major source Iron and Steel Foundries source
category and the technology review for the area source Iron and Steel
Foundries source category regulated under national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final
action to remove exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) and to specify that emissions standards apply at all
times. These final amendments also require electronic reporting of
performance test results and compliance reports and make minor
corrections and clarifications to a few other rule provisions for major
sources and area sources.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 10, 2020. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 2,
2008.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0373. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a
temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand
deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
e.g. exempli gratia (for example)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HQ hazard quotient
i.e. id est (that is)
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
MOA mode of action
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O&M operation and maintenance
OEHHA (California EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
ppmv parts per million by volume
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air pollutant(s)

    Background information. On October 9, 2019 (84 FR 54394), the EPA
proposed decisions related to the major source Iron and Steel Foundries
NESHAP based on our RTR and the area source Iron and Steel Foundries
NESHAP based on our technology review. In this action, we are
finalizing those decisions and other revisions to the rules. We
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received
regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron and Steel
Foundries Major Source Residual Risk and Technology Review and Area
Source Technology Review--Final Rule--Summary of Public Comments and
Responses, which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0373). A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. 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 and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the Iron and Steel Foundries source categories and
how do the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Iron and Steel Foundries
source categories in our October 9, 2019, proposal?

III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the major source Iron and Steel Foundries source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Iron and Steel Foundries source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Iron and Steel Foundries source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Major Source Iron and Steel
Foundries Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries Source
Categories
    C. Removal of the SSM Exemptions
    D. Electronic Reporting
    E. Technical and Editorial Corrections
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category                   NESHAP          NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron and Steel Foundries.......  40 CFR part 63, subpart          331511
                                  EEEEE.                          331512
                                 40 CFR part 63, subpart
                                  ZZZZZ.
                                                                  331513
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air and
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by November 9, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator 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 should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) 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), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major

sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or
more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.''
For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. For area
sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set
standards based on generally available control technologies or
management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
    In the second stage of the NESHAP regulatory process, the CAA
requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to
as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, which is applicable to both MACT and GACT standards,
we must review the technology-based standards and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review,
which is limited to the MACT standards, we must evaluate the risk to
public health remaining after application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based MACT
standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual
risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\1\ For
more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see 84 FR
54394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the Iron and Steel Foundries source categories and how do
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from these source categories?

    The EPA promulgated the MACT standards for major source iron and
steel foundries on April 22, 2004 (69 FR 21906). The standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. The EPA promulgated GACT
standards for area source iron and steel foundries on January 2, 2008,
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ (73 FR 252). Iron and steel
foundries manufacture metal castings by melting iron and/or steel in a
furnace, pouring the molten iron or steel into a mold of a desired
shape, allowing the casting to cool (solidify) in the mold, removing
the casting from the mold, and finishing (grinding and cleaning) the
final cast product. There are approximately 45 major source iron and
steel foundries in the United States and approximately 390 area source
foundries.
    The MACT standards for major source iron and steel foundries
established the following: Particulate matter (PM) emission limits (as
a surrogate for metal HAP) and alternative metal HAP emission limits
for metal melting furnaces; triethylamine emission limits from phenolic
urethane cold box mold and core making operations; and organic HAP
emission limits for new and existing cupola melting furnaces and scrap
preheaters and for new automated cooling and shakeout lines. The MACT
standards also included work practice standards prohibiting methanol to
be used as a specific component of furan (also known as furfuryl
alcohol) warm box mold and core making lines and instituting scrap
selection and inspection requirements to limit the amount of mercury,
lead, chlorinated plastics, and free liquids present in the scrap fed
to metal melting furnaces. For other ancillary sources at the foundry,
such as casting finishing, the MACT standards include a building
opacity limit.
    The GACT standards for area source iron and steel foundries
established PM emission limits (as a surrogate for metal HAP) and
alternative metal HAP emission limits for metal melting furnaces at
``large'' foundries.\2\ The GACT standards for metal melting furnaces
at area source foundries are less stringent than the MACT standards for
major source foundries and include an allowance to use emissions
averaging. Small and large area source iron and steel foundries are
required to operate according to scrap selection and inspection
requirements to limit the amount of mercury, lead, chlorinated
plastics, and free liquids present in the scrap fed to metal melting
furnaces and to operate furan warm box mold and core making lines
without the use of methanol as a component of the catalyst formulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Existing area source foundries with annual metal melt
production exceeding 20,000 tons and new area source foundries with
annual metal melt capacity exceeding 10,000 tons are defined as
``large'' foundries; area source foundries at or below these metal
melt rates are defined as ``small'' foundries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What changes did we propose for the Iron and Steel Foundries source
categories in our October 9, 2019, proposal?

    On October 9, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (84 FR 54394) for the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP
for both major and area sources, 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and
ZZZZZ, that took into consideration the RTR analyses for major sources
and the technology review for area sources. In the proposed rule, we
proposed that the health risks due to HAP emissions from major source
iron and steel foundries

are acceptable and that the Iron and Steel Foundries major source
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and that additional standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. We also proposed
that no revisions to the Iron and Steel Foundries major source or area
source NESHAP are necessary based on our technology review. We proposed
revisions to the SSM provisions of both NESHAP in order to ensure that
they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We proposed revisions to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of both NESHAP to require the use of
electronic reporting of performance test reports and semiannual
reports. We also proposed to correct a section reference error in the
major source NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) and to correct
several section reference errors and make other minor editorial
revisions to the area source NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ).
For additional information regarding the proposed rule, see the October
9, 2019, proposal (84 FR 54394).

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Iron and Steel Foundries major
source category and the CAA technology review provisions for the Iron
and Steel Foundries area source category. This action also finalizes
other changes to the NESHAP, including proposed revisions to SSM
requirements, electronic reporting requirements, and editorial
corrections. This action also reflects several changes to the October
2019 proposal in consideration of comments received during the public
comment period described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
major source Iron and Steel Foundries source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to Iron and Steel Foundries major
source NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed
determination that risks from the Iron and Steel Foundries source
category are acceptable, the standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received
no new data or other information during the public comment period that
causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not
making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA section
112(f), and we are readopting the existing standards. Further
information regarding these decisions are provided in section IV of
this preamble.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Iron and Steel Foundries source categories?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that necessitate revisions to the
MACT or GACT standards for these source categories. Therefore, we are
not finalizing revisions to the MACT or GACT standards under CAA
section 112(d)(6). The analyses and rationale for these decisions are
described in section IV of this preamble.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing amendments to the major source and area source
Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related
to SSM consistent with what we proposed (84 FR 54415) except for the
volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) standards during startup and shutdown for
cupola melting furnaces at major source iron and steel foundries.\3\
With regard to cupola furnaces VOHAP standards, we are removing the SSM
exemptions consistent with what we proposed, however, with regard to
the VOHAP emissions standards, we are finalizing work practice
standards for VOHAP emissions for periods of startup and shutdown based
on consideration of public comments instead of applying numeric
emissions limits during these periods, as described in more detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) VOHAP emission
limit for cupola melting furnaces applies only to major source iron
and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE). The area source
NESHAP only regulates metal HAP emissions from melting furnaces so
the SSM revisions for 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, are being
finalized as proposed without exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As
explained in section IV.D.1 of the October 2019 proposal preamble (84
FR 54415, October 9, 2019), the EPA proposed that the Iron and Steel
Foundries NESHAP would require that the standards apply at all times,
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Except for cupola melting furnace VOHAP emission
limits, the EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without
setting a separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in
the October 2019 proposal (84 FR 54415).
    For VOHAP emissions from cupola melting furnaces, the EPA is
finalizing separate standards during periods of cupola startup and
shutdown to address public comments received on the proposed rule.
Specifically, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the 20 ppmv VOHAP
emission limit to apply only during normal production operations (e.g.,
when furnace is actively producing molten metal), or more specifically,
what the major source NESHAP refers to as ``on blast'' conditions as
defined in the rule. With regard to cupola furnace startup and shutdown
periods, which are considered part of the ``off blast'' conditions in
the major source NESHAP, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards
that require compliance with the building opacity limit during initial
cupola startup procedures (e.g., refractory curing, cupola bed
preparation, and beginning stage of cupola coke bed preparation) and
final shutdown procedures (e.g., cooling and cupola banking or bottom
drop). For other startup, shutdown, and idling periods, the EPA is
finalizing work practice standards requiring that owners/operators (1)
begin operating the cupola afterburner or other thermal combustion
device as soon as practicable after beginning the coke bed preparatory
step but no later than 30 minutes after the blast air is started to
begin the coke bed burn-in and (2) operate the afterburner or other
thermal combustion device with a flame present at all times during
other off blast periods. Furthermore, we are requiring facilities to
operate according to procedures to minimize emissions and ensure safety
during all of these periods as specified in the operation and
maintenance (O&M) plan. We are finalizing new definitions of ``cupola
startup'' and ``cupola shutdown'' to

clarify when these work practice standards apply and adding
recordkeeping requirements for facilities to demonstrate compliance
with the new work practice standards. We also added monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for foundry owners or operators to
demonstrate compliance with the new work practice standards. More
detail regarding these revisions from the proposal are provided in
section IV.C of this preamble.
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing separate standards for
malfunctions. We are finalizing provisions in the final rule consistent
with our proposal with regard to malfunctions (see 84 FR 54415). As
discussed in the October 2019 proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA
section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for
malfunctions where feasible. For this action, it is unlikely that a
malfunction would result in a violation of the standards, and no
comments were submitted that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section
IV.D.1 of the proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's
rationale for the decision not to set separate standards for
malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, given that administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations.
    As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and
ZZZZZ, to eliminate requirements that include rule language providing
exemptions for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are finalizing our
proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of
startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained
further below. Finally, we are finalizing our proposal to revise the
Deviation Notification Report and related records as they relate to
malfunctions, as described below. As discussed in the October 2019
proposal preamble, these revisions are consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. Refer to sections III.D.1
through 5 of the October 2019 proposal preamble for a detailed
discussion of these amendments (see 84 FR 54415).

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    The EPA is requiring owners or operators of iron and steel
foundries to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The final rule requires
that performance test results and performance evaluation results be
submitted using the Electronic Reporting Tool. For semiannual reports,
the final rule requires that owners or operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version
of the templates for these reports are located on the CEDRI website.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum,
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    We proposed that all of the SSM revisions would become effective
upon promulgation. The SSM revisions to the area source NESHAP being
promulgated in this action are effective on September 10, 2020, as
proposed. The SSM revisions to the General Provisions table in major
source NESHAP (Table 1 to subpart EEEEE of part 63) being promulgated
in this action are also effective on September 10, 2020, as proposed.
However, as previously noted in section III.C of this preamble, we are
finalizing new work practice standards specific to cupola startup and
shutdown. Therefore, we are providing 180 days for facilities to
transition to these new requirements and retaining specific provisions
within the major source NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7720 regarding SSM for this
180-day transition period. As proposed, we are also providing 180 days
for facilities to transition to the electronic reporting requirements.
As such, revisions for selected SSM provisions and for the electronic
reporting requirements being promulgated in this action are effective
on March 9, 2021.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Iron and Steel Foundries source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Residual Risk and
Technology Review and Area Source Technology Review--Final Rule--
Summary of Public Comments and Responses, which is available in the
docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).

A. Residual Risk Review for the Major Source Iron and Steel Foundries
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the major
source Iron and Steel Foundries source category?
    We proposed that the health risks due to emissions of HAP from the
major source Iron and Steel Foundries source category are acceptable
and that the NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and that no additional standards are necessary to prevent
an adverse environmental effect.
    Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. More detailed
information on the risk assessment can be found in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in

Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule document,
available in the docket for this action.

                                                      Table 2--Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum individual cancer risk    Population at increased risk of   Annual cancer incidence (cases     Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI \3\   Maximum screening
                                        (in 1 million) \2\             cancer >= 1-in-1 million                  per year)            ----------------------------------------  acute noncancer
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------             Based on . . .                    HQ \4\
    Number of facilities \1\              Based on . . .                    Based on . . .                    Based on . . .          ----------------------------------------------------------
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Actual         Allowable          Actual         Allowable          Actual         Allowable      Actual emissions        Allowable       Based on actual
                                 emissions level  emissions level  emissions level  emissions level  emissions level  emissions level         level          emissions level    emissions level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.............................              50               50          144,000          144,000             0.02             0.02   0.5 (spleen)......  0.5 (spleen)......  HQREL = 1
                                                                                (arsenic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory. The respiratory TOSHI was calculated using the
  California EPA (CalEPA) chronic reference exposure level (REL) for acrolein.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ) values. HQ values shown use the
  lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    As shown in Table 2, for the major source Iron and Steel Foundries
source category, the maximum cancer risk to the individual most exposed
is 50-in-1 million due to actual emissions or allowable emissions. This
risk is less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper
limit of acceptable risk. The estimated incidence of cancer due to
inhalation exposures for the source category is 0.02 excess cancer
cases per year, or one excess case every 50 years. We estimated that
approximately 144,000 people face an increased cancer risk greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions
from this source category. The Agency estimated that the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure, 0.5 (spleen), is less
than 1. The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts
estimated a maximum acute HQ of 1 (due to arsenic) based on the REL.
    With regard to multipathway human health risks, we estimated the
maximum cancer risk for the highest exposed individual is 20-in-1
million (due to polycyclic organic matter (POM)) and the maximum
noncancer chronic HQs are less than 1 for all the HAP known to be
persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP).
    A screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental
risk associated with emissions of arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, hydrogen
chloride, hydrogen flouride, lead, mercury, and POM indicated that no
ecological benchmarks were exceeded. Considering all the health risk
information and factors discussed above, the EPA proposed that the
risks are acceptable and that no additional standards are necessary to
prevent an adverse environmental effect.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
that could be applied to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP from the source category. The main control we
evaluated to reduce organic HAP emissions was carbon adsorption as a
possible add-on control to further reduce VOHAP and associated risks
from mold- and core-making and pouring, cooling and shakeout lines at
existing sources. The main control we evaluated to reduce metal HAP
emissions was improved capture of fugitive PM emissions from scrap
handling and melting furnaces and routing them to fabric filter control
devices.
    We estimated the cost of the additional controls to reduce organic
HAP emissions would be $12,700 per ton of organic HAP reduced or
greater and would require a capital investment exceeding $27 million.
With regard to risk reductions, we estimated the maximum individual
risk (MIR) would be reduced from 50-in-1 million to 30-in-1 million,
and the number of people with risks >= 1-in-1 million would also be
reduced.
    We estimated the cost of the improved capture and control to reduce
metal HAP emissions would be almost $800,000 per ton metal HAP reduced
and would require a capital investment of $23 million. With regard to
risk reductions, we estimated the HAP metals contribution to the MIR
would be reduced from 30-in-1 million to 3-in-1 million, and the number
of people with risks >= 1-in-1 million would also be reduced.
    Based on consideration of the costs and cost effectiveness of both
the organic HAP and metal HAP emission control systems, consideration
of potential impacts to small businesses, the moderate risk reductions
that would be achieved, and the uncertainties in the emissions
estimates, we proposed that the Iron and Steel Foundries major source
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and
we did not propose any changes to the NESHAP based on the risk review.
For more details regarding the risk review, including the ample margin
of safety analysis, see the proposal preamble (84 FR 54398).
2. How did the risk review change for the major source Iron and Steel
Foundries source category?
    The EPA has not made any changes to either the risk assessments or
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of
safety, or adverse environmental effects for the major source Iron and
Steel Foundries source category since the proposal was published on
October 9, 2019. We are finalizing the risk review as proposed with no
changes (84 FR 54394, October 9, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the EPA's conclusion that
risks from iron and steel foundry emissions are acceptable and that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety, but they suggested
that the emissions data used by the EPA are outdated and flawed and
that actual emissions are lower, which would result in even lower risk
projections. They also stated that the costs of additional controls
were significantly understated. According to the commenters, the higher
cost coupled with lower emissions, which would also lower the estimated
emission reductions, demonstrates that additional controls are not cost
effective. On the other hand, one commenter opposed the risk
conclusions stating that the EPA did not fully consider fugitive
emissions.
    Response: Regarding comments on the accuracy and completeness of
the emissions and cost estimates, we used the best available emissions
data in our risk assessment. We consider the emissions and release
characteristics

used in the risk assessment to be reasonable and appropriate for the
analysis conducted. It is clear that fugitive emission sources were
included as several of these sources were driving the risk estimates
for most facilities. We intentionally conducted a screening assessment
of control measures using best-case (lowest cost) assumptions to
determine whether, under ideal conditions, these controls might be cost
effective. Based on the results of our screening analysis, we concluded
that the controls were not warranted based on costs and that more
detailed analyses of these control systems were not necessary (for more
details see the preamble of the proposed rule, 84 FR 54412, October 9,
2019).
    Comment: One commenter opposed the risk acceptability conclusion
stating that the EPA significantly underestimated the risk because the
EPA's Residual Risk Assessment failed to follow the best available
science, including:
    (1) Underestimating health threats to children and from early-life
exposure by ignoring increased risk in childhood and from prenatal
exposure;
    (2) underestimating health threats to communities exposed to
multiple sources by refusing to add factors to account for the
increased risks caused by such exposure;
    (3) underestimating health threats by refusing to assess health
risks at all for pollutants such as lead and refusing to assess
multipathway risks for additional emitted persistent bioaccumulative
pollutants such as toxic metals like chromium (VI), nickel, beryllium,
antimony, and manganese; and
    (4) underestimating the cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute health
risks by using modeling assumptions that ignore real-world exposures,
underestimating risk from chemicals such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
nickel, manganese, and lead due to the EPA's refusal to follow the best
available science and ignoring the more protective health values
created by CalEPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA).
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim that the
risk assessment for this source category does not consider the groups
that may be most at risk (e.g., children and developing fetuses). When
the EPA derives dose-response values for HAP, it considers the most
sensitive populations identified in the available literature, and these
are the values used in the Agency's risk assessments.\5\ The EPA has an
approach for selecting appropriate health benchmark values and, in
general, this approach places greater weight on the EPA-derived health
benchmarks than those from other agencies for the reasons explained in
the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel
Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373). Additionally, the approach of favoring the EPA
benchmarks (when they exist) has been endorsed by the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and ensures the use of values most consistent with well-
established and scientifically-based EPA science policy. The EPA
continually evaluates other benchmarks, including CalEPA OEHHA child-
specific reference doses (RfDs) and more recent inhalation RELs \6\ in
the context of assessing risk from exposure to HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA (2002). A Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-02/002F.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/osa/review-reference-dose-and-reference-concentration-processes.
    \6\ More recently published OEHHA RELs use a more protective set
of inter-individual uncertainty factors (UFs), with a default of 30
as opposed to the EPA default of 10 with the intent of protecting
for more susceptible individuals, most notably children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to cancer, the EPA uses an age-dependent adjustment
factor approach referred to by the commenter but limits the application
of age-dependent adjustment factors to carcinogenic pollutants that are
known to act via mutagenic mode of action (MOA); in contrast, the
CalEPA OEHHA approach is to apply adjustment factors across the board
for all carcinogens, regardless of MOA. In lieu of chemical-specific
data on which age or life-stage specific risk estimates or potencies
can be determined, default age-dependent adjustment factors can be
applied when assessing cancer risk for early-life exposures to
chemicals that cause cancer through a mutagenic MOA. With regard to
other carcinogenic pollutants (e.g., non-mutagenic) for which early-
life susceptibility data are lacking, it is the Agency's long-standing
science policy position that use of the linear low-dose extrapolation
approach (without further adjustment) provides adequate public health
conservatism in the absence of chemical-specific data indicating
differential early-life susceptibility or when the MOA is not
mutagenicity.\7\ The basis for this methodology is provided in the
EPA's 2005 Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from
Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. EPA (2002). A Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-02/002F.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/osa/review-reference-dose-and-reference-concentration-processes.
    \8\ U.S. EPA (2005). Supplemental Guidance for Assessing
Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-
03/003F. Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also disagrees with the commenter that a children's default
safety factor of 10 or more should be added to the EPA's reference
values in response to the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996.9 10 In response to
the EPA noncancer reference value derivation, the Agency evaluated the
methods for considering children's risk in the development of reference
values. As part of the response, the EPA (i.e., the Science Policy
Council and Risk Assessment Forum) established the RfD/reference
concentration (RfC) Technical Panel to develop a strategy for
implementing the FQPA and examine the issues relative to protecting
children's health and application of the 10X safety factor. One of the
outcomes of the Technical Panel's efforts was an in-depth review of a
number of issues related to the RfD/RfC process.\11\ The most critical
aspect in the derivation of a reference value pertaining to the FQPA
has to do with variation between individual humans and is accounted for
by a default UF when no chemical-specific data are available. The EPA
reviewed the default UF for inter-human variability and found the EPA's
default value of 10 adequate for all susceptible populations, including
children and infants. The EPA also recommended the use of chemical-
specific data in preference to default UFs when available \12\ and has
developed Agency guidance to facilitate consistency in the development
and use of data-derived extrapolation factors for RfCs and RfDs.\13\
Additionally, the EPA also

applies a database UF, which is intended to account for the potential
for deriving an under protective RfD/RfC as a result of an incomplete
characterization of the chemical's toxicity. In addition to the
identification of toxicity information that is lacking, review of
existing data may also suggest that a lower reference value might
result if additional data were available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. EPA, Pesticide: Regulating Pesticides. The Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA).
    \10\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-food-quality-protection-act.
    \11\ U.S. EPA (2002). A Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-02/002F.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/osa/review-reference-dose-and-reference-concentration-processes.
    \12\ U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation
reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry.
(EPA/600/8-90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=71993.
    \13\ U.S. EPA (2014). Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to
Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and
Intraspecies Extrapolation. EPA/100/R-14/002F. https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidance-applying-quantitative-data-develop-data-derived-extrapolation-factors-interspecies-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the estimated risks must also be considered in the
context of the full set of assumptions used for this risk assessment.
The EPA's dose-response values for HAP are considered plausible upper-
bound estimates with an appropriate age-dependent adjustment factor.
The EPA's chronic noncancer reference values have been derived
considering the potential susceptibility of different subgroups, with
specific consideration of children. An extra 10-fold UF is not needed
in the RfC/RfD methodology because the currently applied factors are
considered sufficient to account for uncertainties in the database from
which the reference values are derived.
    Regarding the commenter's assertion that the EPA has underestimated
health threats to communities exposed to multiple sources, the EPA
typically examines facility-wide risks to provide additional context to
the source category risks. The development of facility-wide risk
estimates provides additional information about the potential
cumulative risks in the vicinity of the RTR sources, as one means of
informing potential risk-based decisions about the RTR source category
in question. Because these risk estimates were derived from facility-
wide emissions estimates that have not generally been subjected to the
same level of engineering review as the source category emission
estimates, they may be less certain than the risk estimates for the
source category in question, but they remain important for providing
context as long as their uncertainty is taken into consideration in the
process.
    The EPA notes that section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves
the EPA's use of the two-step process for developing standards to
address residual risk and interpret ``acceptable risk'' and ``ample
margin of safety'' as developed in the Benzene NESHAP. In the Benzene
NESHAP, the EPA rejected approaches that would have mandated
consideration of background levels of pollution in assessing the
acceptability of risk, concluding that ``With respect to considering
other sources of risk from benzene exposure and determining the
acceptable risk level for all exposures to benzene, the EPA considered
this inappropriate because only the risk associated with the emissions
under consideration are relevant to the regulation being established
and, consequently, the decisions being made.'' (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989). The EPA's authority to use the two-step process laid out in
the Benzene NESHAP, and to consider a variety of measures of risk to
public health, is discussed more thoroughly in the preamble to the
proposed rule. Nothing in the CAA or the Benzene NESHAP in any way
forecloses the EPA from considering facility-wide risks in making a
determination under CAA section 112(f)(2), as such information can
constitute relevant health information. Although not considered in the
determination of acceptable risk, the EPA notes that background risks
or contributions to risk from sources outside the source category under
review could be one of the relevant factors considered in the ample
margin of safety determination, along with cost and economic factors,
technological feasibility, and other factors.
    The EPA acknowledges it does not have screening values for some of
the PB-HAP but the EPA disagrees that the multipathway assessment is
inadequate. In the Air Toxics Assessment Library (available at: https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library), the EPA developed the current PB-HAP
list considering all of the available information on persistence and
bioaccumulation. This list reviewed HAP identified as PB-HAP by other
EPA program offices (e.g., the Great Waters Program). This list was
peer-reviewed by the SAB and found to be acceptable and, therefore, the
EPA considers it to be reasonable for use in the RTR program. Based on
these sources and the limited available information on the persistence
and bioaccumulation of other HAP, the EPA does not think that the
potential for multipathway risk from other HAP rises to the level of
the PB-HAP currently on the list.
    The EPA disagrees that it has failed to assess potential risks from
lead. As for other pollutants included in the assessment of noncancer
hazard from inhalation, RTR assessments include lead in the calculation
of TOSHIs. For lead, neurological and developmental TOSHIs are
calculated. In these indices, modeled concentrations of lead are
compared to the 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) (which was reviewed and retained in 2016),\14\ and other
pollutant concentrations are compared to their respective noncancer
reference values, then the individual pollutant HQs are summed to
calculate the TOSHIs. To assess the potential for hazard from
multipathway exposures, modeled air concentrations are compared to the
lead NAAQS. The EPA notes that in developing the NAAQS for lead, air-
related multipathway effects were already taken into account. That is,
as noted at 73 FR 66971, ``As was true in the setting of the current
standard, multimedia distribution of and multipathway exposure to Pb
that has been emitted into the ambient air play a key role in the
Agency's consideration of the Pb NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-lead-pb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While recognizing that lead has been demonstrated to exert ``a
broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems,'' the
lead NAAQS targets the effects associated with relatively lower
exposures and associated blood lead levels, specifically nervous system
effects in children including cognitive and neurobehavioral effects (73
FR 66976). The 2008 decision on the lead NAAQS was informed by an
evidence-based framework for neurocognitive effects in young children.
In applying the evidence-based framework, the EPA focused on a
subpopulation of U.S. children, those living near air sources and more
likely to be exposed at the level of the standard; to the same effect
see 73 FR 67000/3--``The framework in effect focuses on the sensitive
subpopulation that is the group of children living near sources and
more likely to be exposed at the level of the standard. The evidence-
based framework estimates a mean air-related IQ loss for this
subpopulation of children; it does not estimate a mean for all U.S.
children''; 73 FR 67005/1--``the air-related IQ loss framework provides
estimates for the mean air-related IQ loss of a subset of the
population of U.S. children, and there are uncertainties associated
with those estimates. It provides estimates for that subset of children
likely to be exposed to the level of the standard, which is generally
expected to be the subpopulation of children living near sources who
are likely to be most highly exposed.'' In addition, in reviewing and
sustaining the lead primary NAAQS, the EPA notes that the Court
specifically noted that the rule was targeted to protect children
living near lead sources: ``EPA explained that the scientific evidence

showing the impact of lead exposure in young children in the United
States led it `to give greater prominence to children as the sensitive
subpopulation in this review' and to focus its revision of the lead
NAAQS on the `sensitive subpopulation that is the group of children
living near [lead emission] sources and more likely to be exposed at
the level of the standard.' Given the scientific evidence on which it
relied, the EPA's decision to base the revised lead NAAQS on protecting
the subset of children likely to be exposed to airborne lead at the
level of the standard was not arbitrary or capricious.'' Coalition of
Battery Recyclers, 604 F. 3d at 618.
    Regarding the comment that the EPA underestimates the cancer,
chronic noncancer, and acute health risks by using modeling assumptions
that ignore real-world exposures, underestimating risk from other
chemicals such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, nickel and manganese, due to
the EPA's refusal to follow the best available science and ignoring the
more protective health values created by CalEPA's OEHHA, the EPA uses
dose-response information that has been obtained from various sources.
As noted above, the dose-response information is prioritized according
to (1) conceptual consistency with the EPA's risk assessment guidelines
and (2) level of public and peer review received. The prioritization
process is aimed at incorporating into RTR assessments the best
available science with respect to dose-response information.
Application of this approach generally results in the following
priority order: (1) U.S. EPA IRIS, (2) Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), (3) CalEPA, and (4) other sources. Deviations
from this prioritization only occur if there are concerns that the top
priority values have become outdated or newer evidence suggests they
are not protective; such was not the case for the values used in this
RTR assessment. Based on this approach, the EPA determined that the
best available science was used in the risk assessment, that the risks
are acceptable, that the existing standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and that no changes are needed from
the proposal based on this comment.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand''
(see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors
in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR,
cancer incidence, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk
estimation uncertainties.
    In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the
emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health ``in consideration of all health information, including the
number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1
million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant
to each particular decision.'' Id. We evaluated additional control
measures to reduce the number of persons exposed at risk levels higher
than approximately 1-in-1 million and determined that these additional
control measures were not reasonable considering the costs and economic
impacts. Therefore, we concluded that the major source Iron and Steel
Foundries NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
    We evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and determined
that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in
the proposal, we determined that the risks from the major source Iron
and Steel Foundries source category are acceptable, the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
and more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our residual risk review as proposed and readopting the
standards for the major source Iron and Steel Foundries source
category.

B. Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries Source Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Iron
and Steel Foundries source categories?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude that no
revisions to the current major source or area source NESHAP for Iron
and Steel Foundries are necessary. Based on our technology review
described in the October 9, 2019, proposal (84 FR 54414), we determined
that there are no developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that necessitate revisions to the NESHAP for major source
Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) or the NESHAP
for area source Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZZ).
2. How did the technology review change for the Iron and Steel
Foundries source categories?
    The EPA has not made any changes to the technology review since the
proposal was published on October 9, 2019. We are finalizing the
technology review as proposed with no changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology reviews, and what
are our responses?
    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the EPA's proposed
technology review conclusions. Other commenters suggested that the EPA
needed to revise the standards because the EPA specifically considered
the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) to be a
``development'' with respect to the major source MACT standards. These
commenters also suggested that the EPA should consider fugitive control
measures required by Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(``BAAQMD'') and South Coast Air Quality Management District
(``SCAQMD'') standards and work practices considered in the EPA's
proposed Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing RTR proposed rule (84
FR 42704, August 16, 2019) to be ``developments'' for major and area
source foundries and take these into account in this rulemaking.
    Response: As an initial matter, CAA section 112(d)(6) does not
require the EPA to revise the standards if a ``development'' is
identified, but to consider whether it is necessary to revise the
standards in light of the developments. While we acknowledge that the
NVMSRP was initiated after the major source rule (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE) was promulgated, we note that the major source rule
includes

requirements to remove mercury switches from automotive scrap
consistent with the NVMSRP and that it acted as a catalyst for the
development of the NVMSRP. Because the major source rule already
requires mercury switch removal consistent with this ``development,''
no additional revisions to the major source rule were deemed
``necessary.'' With respect to additional fugitive emissions
requirements, we specifically assessed adding improved capture and
control requirements to reduce emissions of fugitive metal HAP
emissions similar to those suggested by the commenter (see Control Cost
Estimates for Metal HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries, which
is available in the docket as Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-
0015). We concluded that these control measures were not cost effective
and that it was not necessary to revise the rule to reduce fugitive
metal HAP emissions. Thus, we maintain our conclusion that it is not
necessary to revise the standards based on the developments cited by
the commenter.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
reviews?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the technology reviews and
determined that no changes to the reviews are needed. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology
reviews as proposed.

C. Removal of the SSM Exemptions

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the major and area source Iron and
Steel Foundries NESHAP to remove the provisions related to SSM in order
to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) that standards apply at
all times. As detailed in the October 2019 proposal, we proposed the
following amendments.
     Revising the General Provisions applicability tables
(Table 1 to subpart EEEEE of part 63 and Table 3 to subpart ZZZZZ of
part 63) to change the following entries from a ``yes'' in column 3
(indicating the provision applies) to a ``no'':

[cir] 40 CFR 63.6(e)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.10(c)(7) [for subpart EEEEE]; 40 CFR 63.10(c) [for
subpart ZZZZZ]
[cir] 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) [for subpart ZZZZZ; subpart EEEEE already
indicates ``no'']

     Revising the following paragraphs in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE, to remove the language in the rule that exempted
affected sources from compliance with the standards during periods of
SSM, as well as references to General Provision sections or
requirements that no longer apply.

[cir] 40 CFR 63.7710(a) to remove reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7720(a) to delete the phrase ``. . ., except during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction''
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7720(c) to delete and reserve the paragraph
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7746(b) to delete and reserve the paragraph
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(4) and (c) to delete and reserve the paragraphs
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(2) to remove reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and
require records require by 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iii)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.7752(b)(4) to remove the records needed to indicate
whether deviation of a continuous emission monitoring system occurred
during periods of SSM

     Revising the following paragraphs in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZZ, to remove references to General Provision sections or
requirements that no longer apply.

[cir] 40 CFR 63.10890(i) [re-designated to 40 CFR 63.10890(j)] to
remove reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e)
[cir] 40 CFR 63.10897(g) to remove reference to minimizing periods of
SSM
[cir] 40 CFR 63.10899(b) to revise the general reference to records
required by 40 CFR 63.10 to specify that only records required by 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi) through (xiv), and (b)(3) are necessary

     Adding 40 CFR 63.7752(d) of subpart EEEEE and 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(15) of subpart ZZZZZ to specify recordkeeping requirements
during a malfunction.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(7) and (8) of subpart EEEEE and
40 CFR 63.10899(c) of subpart ZZZZZ to specify reporting requirements
for specific deviations.
    We proposed that the effective date of these revisions be the date
of promulgation of the final rule. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 54415-44419, October 9, 2019).
2. What changed since proposal?
    For the area source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ), we are
finalizing the revisions to the SSM provisions as proposed with no
changes. For the major source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE), we
are finalizing most revisions regarding SSM provisions as proposed such
that the emission limits apply at all times without the need for
different standards during periods of startup and shutdown. However,
for new and existing major source cupola melting furnaces, we are
finalizing specific work practice standards for VOHAP emissions that
apply during startup and shutdown. For cupola melting furnaces, we are
finalizing that the 20 ppmv VOHAP emission limit in 40 CFR
63.7690(a)(8) applies only while the cupola is ``on blast'' (normal
operations) and we are adding work practice standards at 40 CFR
63.7700(g) to limit VOHAP emissions during periods of off blast, which
includes startup, shutdown, or idling. We are adding reference to these
new work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.7710(b) so that the O&M plan
specifically covers the capture and control systems used to comply with
the new work practice standards. We are adding reference to these new
work practice standards at 40 CFR 63.7740(e) and 63.7741(d) to require
temperature monitoring to demonstrate that the afterburner or other
thermal combustion device flame is present as required in 40 CFR
63.7700(g)(2)(i). We are also adding additional recordkeeping
requirements at 40 CFR 63.7744(e) for facilities to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the new work practice standards. These
records include: Combustion zone temperature for the cupola's thermal
combustion control device, the time blast air is started to begin the
coke bed burn-in, the time the cupola afterburner or other thermal
combustion device is lit, the time metal production starts during
cupola startup, the time when metal production ends, the time slag
removal was completed, the time the afterburner or other thermal
combustion device is turned off during cupola shutdown, and the times
idling starts and stops.
    With regard to compliance dates, we are providing 180 days to
comply with these new work practice standards for major source iron and
steel foundries and also for the SSM related provisions in 40 CFR
63.7720 including provisions that state the emission limits apply at
all times. We are retaining the rule-specific SSM provisions from the
original NESHAP (including the requirement to have an SSM plan) for the
first 180 days until the compliance date for the new work practice
standards becomes effective. For other proposed SSM

revisions in the major source rule and for all of the proposed SSM
revisions in that area source rule, which are predominately revisions
to General Provisions applicability tables, we are finalizing
requirements that foundry owners or operators will need to comply with
these revisions on the date this final rule is published in the Federal
Register.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Comments: Several commenters supported the proposed removal of the
SSM exemptions. One commenter indicated that meeting the parametric
monitoring requirement of 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit for afterburners
that are used to control VOHAP emissions from cupola furnaces is likely
to be an issue during cupola startup and shutdown and recommended new
definitions of ``cupola startup'' and ``cupola shutdown,'' and
revisions to the definition of ``off blast'' as follows:
    Cupola Startup means the time beginning when molten metal is first
tapped from a cupola that had previously been shut down.
    Cupola Shutdown means the time ending once the last charge is added
to the cupola preceding either cupola banking or cupola bottom drop.
    Off Blast means those periods of cupola operation when the cupola
is not actively being used to produce molten metal. Off blast
conditions also include idling conditions when the blast air is turned
off or down to the point that the cupola does not produce additional
molten metal.
    The same commenter recommended that the compliance date related to
SSM-related rule changes be revised to 180 days after the date of the
final rule for both subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ of 40 CFR part 63 to allow
facilities sufficient time to extract O&M plans that may be integrated
with SSM plans as well as to develop other facility-specific procedures
to address amended rule requirements related to SSM events.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the October 2019 proposal
(84 FR 54415, October 9, 2019), we acknowledged that the cupola
afterburners would not be able to meet the 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit
parametric monitoring temperature limit during off blast conditions,
but we expected that the emissions would still be compliant with the 20
ppmv VOHAP emission limit. Therefore, initially, we did not understand
why the new definitions would be helpful or necessary. So, we contacted
the commenter to seek clarification of their comments. On February 12,
2020, we had a teleconference meeting with the commenter to try to
better understand the issue. The notes of the meeting are in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373). On March 9,
2020, the commenter provided a document providing further detail of the
cupola startup and shutdown procedures and suggested work practices as
an alternative to the suggested definitions (see email from Jeff
Hannapel to Phil Mulrine dated March 9, 2020, included in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373). On April 2, 2020, we had an additional
teleconference meeting with the commenter to discuss the information
provided in the March 9, 2020, email. The notes of this meeting are
also in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0373).
    During the meetings, the commenter clarified that their main
concern was the VOHAP emissions limit, not the temperature limit. They
explained that there is uncertainty as to whether the cupola furnaces
would meet the VOHAP limit during these periods and that no one has
ever tested emissions during these periods. We also learned that the
definitions suggested by the commenter were intended to remove
preparatory steps from what was considered startup because of the
uncertainty regarding whether they would be able to meet the VOHAP
emissions limit during those periods. However, as some of these
preparatory steps have the potential to emit VOHAP, we concluded that
the suggested definitions were not consistent with the 2008 Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    Based on our improved understanding of the startup and shutdown
procedures for the cupola furnace and related issues, we have
determined that work practice standards are appropriate for these
periods. As noted in CAA section 112(h)(1), ``if it is not feasible in
the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the
Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, which
in the Administrator's judgment is consistent with the provisions of
subsection (d) or (f).'' CAA section 112(h)(2) defines the phrase ``not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' as any
situation in which the Administrator determines that either ``a
hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant,
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be
inconsistent with any Federal, State or local law'' or ``the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.''
    We have concluded that, during periods of cupola off blast, which
includes startup, shutdown, and idling, it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce the numeric limits of the emission standard for VOHAP and
that standards may be appropriately established under CAA section
112(h). The cupola furnace is essentially an open column during the
initial cupola startup steps and during the final cupola shutdown
steps, and the emissions are not emitted through a conveyance. Further,
the initial procedures to prepare the cupola bed or remove the cupola
from service cannot be safely completed with the cupola VOHAP control
system operating. After further evaluation, we have determined the
appropriate requirements for these steps (specifically refractory
curing, cupola bed preparation, and the initial phases of cupola coke
bed preparation during cupola startup and the final cooling stages and
cupola banking or bottom drop during cupola shutdown) are the general
duty requirements in 40 CFR 63.7710(a) to operate according to
procedures to minimize emissions as contained in the O&M plan and to
comply with the opacity limit at 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7). We are adding
definitions of ``cupola startup'' and ``cupola shutdown'' to describe
the various steps for cupola startup and cupola shutdown to clarify
when the work practice standards apply. For other startup and shutdown
procedures, the cupola tuyere covers are closed, and the capture and
control system can be operated. We modified the definition of ``off
blast'' to clearly specify that off blast includes shutdown procedures
as well as startup procedures. Even though the capture system can be
operated during portions of off blast periods, we determined that the
application of reliable emissions measurement methodologies to this
source during these off blast periods is not practicable due to
technological limitations. First, the flow rates during periods of off
blast are typically low and highly variable. Additionally, the off
blast periods are short duration (e.g., less than 3 hours), and the
required duration of a performance test to evaluate compliance with the
VOHAP emission limit is 3 hours. As such, we determined that work
practice standards

are appropriate for VOHAP during off blast periods. We are requiring
that owners/operators (1) begin operating the cupola afterburner or
other thermal combustion device as soon as practicable after beginning
the coke bed preparatory step but no later than 30 minutes after the
blast air is started to begin the coke bed burn-in and (2) operate the
afterburner or other thermal combustion device with a flame present at
all times during other off blast periods. Maintaining the operation of
the afterburner during off blast periods will ensure VOHAP emissions
that come from the process are combusted. Based on our understanding of
the current operations of these furnaces and practices applied in the
industry, we believe these requirements reflect the procedures of the
best performing sources.
    With respect to the compliance dates related to SSM changes, we
proposed that the proposed revisions would become effective immediately
because we expected that facilities could comply immediately with the
standards at all times and that no or limited revisions in procedures
would be needed. Because we are finalizing specific work-practice
standards that apply to VOHAP emissions during cupola startup and
shutdown for major source iron and steel foundries, we expect that some
facilities will need to revise their startup procedures and revise
their O&M plans to comply with the new work practice standards.
Consequently, as suggested by the commenter, we are providing 180 days
for major source facilities to transition from their existing SSM plans
to compliance with the emission limitations, including the new work
practice standards, at all times. We consider 180 days to be the
minimum time needed to complete the management of these changes, which
includes evaluating the changes, forming a team to accomplish the
changes, conducting safety assessments, updating associated plans and
procedures, and providing training to implement the changes. We
consider a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable, and, thus, we are finalizing the requirement that
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of the revised
requirements in the major source NESHAP within 180 days of the
effective date of this final rule. We are revising 40 CFR 63.7720(a)
and (c), which require preparation and operation according to an SSM
plan, to provide a 180-day compliance period with these specific SSM
provisions in the major source NESHAP as foundry owners or operators
transition to the new work practice standards for cupola VOHAP
emissions. Additional time is not required for the areas source NESHAP
SSM revisions that were proposed or other major source NESHAP SSM
revisions (not referenced above) that were proposed because operational
changes are not needed to implement these other revisions, which are
primarily revisions to the General Provisions applicability tables. As
such, we are finalizing that those requirements become effective upon
the date of promulgation as proposed.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to
remove the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed
rule, we determined that the proposed removal of the SSM exemptions is
required to be consistent with the 2008 Court decision that standards
apply at all times. For the area source NESHAP, we are finalizing our
approach for removing the SSM exemptions as proposed. For the major
source NESHAP, we are finalizing our approach for removing the SSM
exemptions as proposed, except for provisions related to cupola furnace
VOHAP emission limits. More information concerning the non-cupola
amendments that we are finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 54415-54419, October 9, 2019). For cupola furnaces
at major source iron and steel foundries, as described above in section
IV.C.3 of this preamble, we determined that work practice standards
during startup and shutdown are appropriate for the VOHAP standards
under the provision of CAA section 112(h). We added monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for foundry owners or operators to
demonstrate compliance with the new work practice standards. The
temperature monitoring requirement is the same as needed to demonstrate
compliance during normal ``on blast'' conditions, so we expect the
monitoring requirement will not increase burden appreciably. The
recordkeeping requirements are new and specific to documenting relevant
times of off blast so facilities can demonstrate compliance with the
new work practice standards. Semiannual reporting of deviations is
required in the major source NESAHP, so reporting of deviations from
the new work practice standards is also required. We determined that
these additional requirements were the minimum necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the new work practice standards for VOHAP from cupola
furnaces during periods of off blast.
    For the reasons detailed in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we are
finalizing these new work practice standards in the major source NESHAP
during cupola startup and shutdown and providing 180 days to comply
with these new requirements. During this 180-day transition period,
major source foundry owners or operators must operate according to
their SSM plan and we are retaining these specific SSM provisions in
the major source NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7720(a) and (c) for the 180-day
transition period. We determined 180 days to be the most expeditious
compliance period practicable to implement operational changes. For
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after the
effective date of these amendments, they must be in compliance with all
emission limitations, including the new work practice standards, upon
startup because additional time is not needed for these sources.

D. Electronic Reporting

1. What did we propose?
    We proposed amendments to the major and area source Iron and Steel
Foundries NESHAP to require foundry owners or operators to submit
electronic copies of initial notifications, notifications of compliance
status, performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
CEDRI. Additionally, we proposed two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be provided at the discretion of
the Administrator. The EPA proposed these extensions to protect owners
or operators from noncompliance in cases where they are unable to
successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons
outside of their control, including CDX and CEDRI outages and force
majeure events, such as acts of nature, war, or terrorism.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We determined that no changes were necessary to the proposed
requirements for foundry owners or operators to submit initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports
electronically using CEDRI. Therefore, we are finalizing the electronic
reporting provisions as proposed (84 FR 54419, October 9, 2019).

3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Comment: The EPA received one comment generally supporting the
proposed amendment to require electronic reporting but asserting that
the force majeure language should be removed. The commenter expressed
concern that the force majeure provisions violate the requirement for
standards to be continuous and that they would allow unreported
exceedances to go unchecked indefinitely.
    Response: Regarding the force majeure provisions, we disagree that
the ability to request a reporting extension would create a mechanism
that owners or operators could use to evade binding emissions standards
or provide a mechanism where those emission standards do not apply at
all times. Also, we note that there is no exception or exemption to
reporting, only a method for requesting an extension of the reporting
deadline. There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of
extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by
the Administrator when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the
request. Different circumstances may require a different length of
extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may
delay electronic reporting for a day, but a category 5 hurricane event
may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility
has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no ability to
access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically.
The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable on the events leading
to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is
appropriate and, if so, determine a reasonable length. The
Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hard copy
until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed duration
deadline is set, the regulation does require that the report be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage is
resolved or after the force majeure event occurs.
    Comment: One commenter stated that electronic reporting through
CEDRI should not be required for states delegated to administer/enforce
the NESHAP, unless electronic reporting is specifically required by the
state.
    Response: Regarding having delegated states determine whether
electronic reporting is required, we note that the delegation of
authority to states does not relieve facilities of their obligation to
report to the EPA per 40 CFR 63.13(a), which requires all requests,
reports, applications, submittals, and other communications shall be
submitted to the appropriate Regional office of the EPA. In the case of
the electronic reporting, those obligations are met through the
submission to CEDRI. We are retaining the requirement to report through
CEDRI for all reporters, as proposed. To clarify that electronic
submission when required by regulation meets the requirement of 40 CFR
63.13(a), Table 1 of subpart EEEEE and Table 3 of ZZZZZ have been
amended to specify in the explanation column that ``Except: reports and
notifications required to be submitted to CEDRI meet this obligation
through electronic reporting.''
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to electronic
reporting?
    We are finalizing as proposed a requirement in both the area source
NESHAP and major source NESHAP that owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries submit electronic copies of notifications, performance
evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports using CEDRI. We
also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility owners
or operators a process to request extensions for submitting electronic
reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility (i.e., for
a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event).
Based on public comments received, we are finalizing an additional
revision to the General Provision tables (Table 1 to subpart EEEEE and
Table 3 to subpart ZZZZZ) to add a specific entry for 40 CFR 63.13(a),
and clarifying in the explanation column that electronic submissions to
CEDRI meet the reporting requirement at 40 CFR 63.13(a). These
amendments will increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal for
owners and operators of iron and steel foundries and will make the data
more accessible to regulators and the public.

E. Technical and Editorial Corrections

1. What did we propose?
    We proposed one editorial correction for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEEE, to revise 40 CFR 63.7732(e)(1) to correct the reference to
``paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v)'' to be ``paragraphs (e)(1)(i)
through (v).''
    We proposed several technical and editorial corrections for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart ZZZZZ as follows.
     To match requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE,
revise 40 CFR 63.10885(a)(1) to add the sentence: ``Any post-consumer
engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily turnings that are
processed and/or cleaned to the extent practicable such that the
materials do not include lead components, mercury switches, chlorinated
plastics, or free organic liquids can be included in this
certification.''
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10890(c) to correct the reference to
``Sec.  63.9(h)(1)(i)'' to be ``Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(i).''
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10890(f) to correct the reference to
``Sec.  63.10(e)'' to be ``Sec.  63.13.''
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10897(d)(3) and (g) to replace all
instances of ``correction action'' with ``corrective action'' to
correct typographical errors.
     Revise 40 CFR 63.10899(c) to correct the reference to
``Sec.  63.10(e)'' to be ``Sec.  63.13.''
     To match requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE,
revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.9 in Table 3 to subpart ZZZZZ to add an
explanation in column 4 to read ``Except for opacity performance
tests.''
2. What changed since proposal?
    We determined that no changes were necessary to the proposed
technical and editorial corrections outlined above. Therefore, we are
finalizing these technical and editorial corrections with no changes
(84 FR 54420, October 9, 2019). We did receive notification of a
typographical error in 40 CFR 63.10897(d)(1)(i) of subpart ZZZZZ, which
specifies detection limits for bag leak detectors. The detectors must
be capable of detecting emissions of PM at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter. This requirement includes a
parenthetical providing the limit in units of grains per actual cubic
feet. Unfortunately, in the area source rule, the limit in units of
grains per actual cubic feet included a typographical error, listing it
as 0.00044 rather than 0.0044 grains per actual cubic feet. The correct
unit conversion for 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter is 0.0044
grains per actual cubic feet. The correct value is included in the
major source rule at 40 CFR 63.7741(b)(1). Based on the identification
of this additional typographical error, we are finalizing revision of
40 CFR 63.10897(d)(1)(i) to revise the parenthetical from ``(0.00044
grains per actual cubic foot)'' to ``(0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot).''
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    The EPA did not receive any comments on the proposed technical and
editorial corrections.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach to technical and
editorial corrections?
    We identified necessary technical and editorial corrections and
received no comments except for the identification of a typographical
error (discussed above) at 40 CFR 63.10897(d)(1)(i) in subpart ZZZZZ.
Therefore, we are finalizing the revisions, including correction of the
typographical error in order to correct and clarify the requirements in
the rules.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are approximately 45 major source iron and steel foundries
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, and approximately 390 area
source iron and steel foundries subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZZ.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Because we are not revising the emission limitations for iron and
steel foundries other than the new work practice standards for VOHAP
for major sources during startup and shutdown for cupola melting
furnaces, we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as
a result of the final amendments. However, since the final amendments
include the removal of the SSM exemptions for both major and area
sources and the addition of new work practice standards for cupola
startup and shutdown for major sources, this final rule may reduce
emissions by an unquantified amount by ensuring proper operation of
control devices and other measures during SSM periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We expect that the final amendments will have minimal cost impacts
for iron and steel foundries. The final editorial corrections will have
no cost impacts. The final revisions to use electronic reporting
effectively replace existing requirements to mail in copies of the
required reports and notifications. We expect that the electronic
system will save some time and expense compared to printing and mailing
the required reports and notifications; however, it will take some time
for foundry owners or operators to review the new electronic
notification and reporting form, review their recordkeeping processes,
and potentially revise their processes to more efficiently complete
their semiannual reports. There may also be initial costs associated
with electronic reporting of performance tests. We are also finalizing
revisions to SSM provisions. Again, these revisions are expected to
have minimal impact on affected iron and steel foundries. For major
source iron and steel foundries, we are eliminating the need to develop
a SSM plan or submit an immediate SSM report when the SSM plan is not
followed and there is an exceedance of an applicable emission
limitation. While this may reduce some burden, iron and steel foundry
owners or operators will still need to assess their operations and make
plans to achieve the emission limitations at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Additionally, we are
adding new recordkeeping requirements for major source foundries
related to cupola off blast periods, which includes cupola startup,
shutdown, and idling periods to demonstrate compliance with the new
work practice standards.
    For the 45 major source iron and steel foundries subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE, we estimate the first-year costs associated
with the final electronic reporting and SSM revisions will be $107,000
or approximately $2,380 per major source foundry. This includes one-
time costs to learn the electronic reporting templates and set up
recordkeeping systems to work with the electronic reporting, one-time
costs for facilities that conducted a source test to learn the
electronic reporting system for submitting performance tests, and costs
associated with the new recordkeeping requirements for the work
practice standards to reduce cupola VOHAP emissions while off blast. As
performance tests are required every 5 years, we expect facilities will
continue to incur additional costs for reporting performance test
results, since facilities reporting performance test results in Year 2,
3, 4, or 5 would be using that system for the first time. For Years 2
and on, owners or operators of major source foundries will incur annual
costs associated with recordkeeping requirements for the work practice
standards to reduce cupola VOHAP emissions while off blast, but they
will also realize some cost savings for semiannual reporting due to
efficiencies achieved once they adapt to the new electronic reporting
system. We estimate the nationwide annual costs for Years 2 through 5
would be approximately $32,500 per year or $720 per year per major
source foundry.
    For the 390 area source foundries subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZZ, we estimate the total first year costs associated with
the final electronic reporting and SSM revisions will be $352,000 or
approximately $900 per area source foundry. This includes one-time
costs to learn the electronic reporting templates and set up
recordkeeping systems to work with the electronic reporting and, for
large area source foundries only, one-time costs to learn the
electronic reporting system for submitting performance tests for those
facilities that conducted a performance test. Because performance tests
are required every 5 years, we expect a portion of the large area
source foundries will continue to incur additional costs for reporting
performance test results, since facilities reporting performance test
results in Year 2, 3, 4, or 5 would be using that system for the first
time. For Years 2 and on, all area source foundries will also realize
some cost savings for semiannual reporting due to efficiencies achieved
once facilities adapt to the new electronic reporting system. We
estimate that all area source will realize a net cost savings for Years
2 and on and that the cumulative saving across all area source
foundries would be $67,400 per year or a savings of $170 per year per
area source foundry.

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

    The final amendments will result in improvements to the rule.
Specifically, the final amendments revise the standards to reflect that
they apply at all times. Additionally, the final amendments requiring
electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance test
results, and semiannual reports will increase the usefulness of the
data, are in keeping with current trends of data availability, will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment,
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
The final technical and editorial corrections improve the clarity of
the rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the major
source Iron and Steel Foundries source category across different
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living 2 times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the major source Iron and Steel Foundries source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 144,000 people to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million and zero people to a chronic noncancer hazard
index greater than or equal to 1. The African American population
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to iron and
steel foundries emissions is 4 percent above the national average.
Likewise, populations living ``Below Poverty Level'' and ``Over 25 and
without High School Diploma'' are exposed to cancer risk above 1-in-1
million, 6 and 4 percent above the national average, respectively. The
percentages of the at-risk population in other demographic groups are
similar to or lower than their respective nationwide percentages. The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Iron and Steel
Foundries, available as Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0020.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
The health risk assessments for this action are contained the document
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA.
1. Iron and Steel Foundries Major Sources
    The information collection request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2096.09. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
    We are finalizing amendments that require electronic reporting,
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for iron and steel foundries major
source facilities. This information will be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries major source facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 45 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 15,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $1,440,000 (per year), which includes $206,000
annualized capital or O&M costs.
2. Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2267.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    We are finalizing amendments that require electronic reporting,
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for iron and steel foundries area
source facilities. This information will be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries area source facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZZ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 390 (total), 75 of these are
classified as large iron and steel foundries and 315 are classified as
small iron and steel foundries.
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 14,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $1,150,000 (per year); there are no annualized capital
or O&M costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that
approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to
40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The final amendments have a very limited
one-time burden as affected facilities implement electronic reporting
for the first time, but affected facilities will see a net cost savings
in subsequent years that will off-set the initial one-time costs within
the first 3 years after implementation. We have, therefore, concluded
that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble. Further documentation is
provided in the following risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment
for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in
the docket for this action.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in the technical report
titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Iron and Steel Foundries, available as Docket
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0020.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40
CFR part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.7690 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7690   What emissions limitations must I meet?

    (a) * * *
    (8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron
and steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions of volatile organic
hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) through a conveyance to the atmosphere
that exceed 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) corrected to 10-
percent oxygen while on blast.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.7700 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7700   What work practice standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (g) For each cupola at a new or existing iron and steel foundry,
you must reduce VOHAP emissions to the extent practicable during
periods of off blast, as defined in Sec.  63.7765, by meeting the
applicable requirements in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) On and before March 9, 2021, you must comply with the
requirements in Sec.  63.7710 and the requirements specified in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required at Sec.  63.7720(c).
    (2) After March 9, 2021, you must comply with the applicable
requirements in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this
section, you

must operate an afterburner or other thermal combustion control device
with a flame present at all times while the cupola is off blast. This
includes the latter portion of coke bed preparation step and the
initial metallics charging step during cupola startup, the slag and
residual metal removal step during cupola shutdown, and idling
conditions when the blast air is turned off or down to the point that
the cupola does not produce additional molten metal.
    (ii) During cupola startup steps of refractory curing and cupola
bed preparation and during the cupola shutdown steps of cupola cooling
and banking or bottom drop, you must comply with the requirements in
Sec.  63.7710 and the opacity limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(7).
    (iii) You must light the cupola afterburner or other thermal
combustion control device as soon as practicable during the cupola
startup step of coke bed preparation following the procedures included
in the operation and maintenance plan required at Sec.  63.7710(b), but
no later than 30 minutes after the blast air is started to begin the
coke bed burn-in.

0
4. Section 63.7710 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7710   What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must always operate and maintain your iron and steel
foundry, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a
manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection
system and control device for an emissions source subject to a PM,
metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a) or the
work practice standards in Sec.  63.7700(g). Your operation and
maintenance plan also must include procedures for igniting gases from
mold vents in pouring areas and pouring stations that use a sand mold
system. This operation and maintenance plan is subject to approval by
the Administrator. Each plan must contain the elements described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.7720 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:

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

    (a) On and before March 9, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 10,
2020, you must be in compliance with the emissions limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup and shutdown.
After March 9, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction
or reconstruction on or before September 10, 2020, and upon startup for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
September 10, 2020, you must be in compliance with the emissions
limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance
requirements in this subpart at all times.
* * * * *
    (c) On and before March 9, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before March 9, 2021,
you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan also must specify what constitutes a shutdown of a
cupola and how to determine that operating conditions are normal
following startup of a cupola. After March 9, 2021, for affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
September 10, 2020, and upon startup for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after September 10, 2020, the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements no longer apply.

0
6. Section 63.7732 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(1)
introductory text to read as follows:

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

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry based on your selected compliance alternative,
if applicable, according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through
(i) of this section. Each performance test must be conducted under
conditions representative of normal operations. Normal operating
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, that are specified
in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.7740 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7740   What are my monitoring requirements?

* * * * *
    (e) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec.  63.7690(b)(3) or the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(g)(2)(i), you must at all times monitor the 15-minute average
combustion zone temperature using a CPMS according to the requirements
of Sec.  63.7741(d).
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.7741 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory
text to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec.  63.7690(b)(3) or (4) or the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(g)(2)(i), you must install and maintain a CPMS to measure and
record the combustion zone temperature according to the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.7744 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7744   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
work practice standards that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (e) For each cupola furnace at a new or existing iron and steel
foundry in off blast, you must keep daily records to document the
relevant times of off blast, in conjunction with the requirements to
monitor and record the combustion zone temperature for the cupola's
thermal combustion control device as required in Sec. Sec.  63.7740(e)
and 63.7741(d), to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
requirements in Sec.  63.7700(g). The relevant times of off

blast include: The time blast air is started to begin the coke bed
burn-in, the time the cupola afterburner or other thermal combustion
device is lit, and the time metal production starts during cupola
startup; the time when metal production ends, the time slag removal is
completed, and the time the afterburner or other thermal combustion
device is turned off during cupola shutdown; and the times idling
starts and stops.

Sec.  63.7746   [Amended]

0
10. Section 63.7746 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

0
11. Section 63.7751 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, removing ``Compliance report due