[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 30365-30399]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-13]                         


[[Page 30365]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 112(k) of 
the Clean Air Act; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other 
Nonferrous Foundries; Final Rule


[[Page 30366]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0236; FRL-8920-9]
RIN 2060-AO93

 
Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 
112(k) of the Clean Air Act; National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other 
Nonferrous Foundries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revising the area source category list by changing the 
name of the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' category to ``Aluminum 
Foundries'' and the ``Nonferrous Foundries, not elsewhere classified 
(nec)'' category to ``Other Nonferrous Foundries.'' At the same time, 
EPA is issuing final national emission standards for the Aluminum 
Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other Nonferrous Foundries area source 
categories. These final emission standards for new and existing sources 
reflect EPA's determination regarding the generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT) for each of the three area 
source categories.

DATES: The final rule is effective on June 25, 2009. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is effective 
as of June 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0236. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available (e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final 
standards for aluminum foundries, contact Mr. David Cole, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Outreach and Information Division, 
Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group (C404-05), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 
Telephone Number: (919) 541-5565; Fax Number: (919) 541-0242; E-mail 
address: Cole.David@epa.gov. For questions about the final standards 
for copper foundries and other nonferrous foundries, contact Mr. Gary 
Blais, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Outreach and 
Information Division, Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group 
(C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; Telephone Number: (919) 541-3223; Fax Number: (919) 541-0242; E-
mail address: Blais.Gary@epa.gov.

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

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Revision to the Source Category List
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Final Standards
    A. Is My Foundry Subject to This Subpart?
    B. Do These Standards Apply to My Source?
    C. When Must I Comply With These Standards?
    D. What Are the Final Standards?
    E. What Are the Testing and Monitoring Requirements?
    F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    G. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?
VI. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. GACT Issues
    B. The Source Category Designation
    C. Subcategorization and Applicability Issues
    D. Management Practices
    E. Definitions
    F. Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping
    G. Testing Requirements
    H. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements
    I. Miscellaneous
VII. Impacts of the Final Standards
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
final rule include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                  NAICS code \1\              Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
    Aluminum Foundries...................          331524  Area source facilities that pour molten aluminum into
                                                            molds to manufacture aluminum castings (excluding
                                                            die casting).
    Copper Foundries.....................          331525  Area source facilities that pour molten copper and
                                                            copper-based alloys (e.g., brass, bronze) into molds
                                                            to manufacture copper and copper-based alloy
                                                            castings (excluding die casting).
    Other Nonferrous Foundries...........          331528  Area source facilities that pour molten nonferrous
                                                            metals (except aluminum and copper) into molds to
                                                            manufacture nonferrous castings (excluding die
                                                            casting). Establishments in this industry purchase
                                                            nonferrous metals, such as nickel, zinc, and
                                                            magnesium that are made in other establishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.


[[Page 30367]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11544 of 
subpart ZZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other 
Nonferrous Foundries). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the 
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA Regional 
representative, as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 
Provisions).

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

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

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by August 24, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly 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 EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 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 Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us to establish national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major 
and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are listed for 
regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the 
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP that, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). In the Strategy, EPA 
identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in 
urban areas; these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.'' Section 
112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories 
of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of 
the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. We 
implemented these requirements through the Strategy and subsequent 
updates to the source category list. The aluminum foundry area source 
category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution 
toward meeting the 90 percent requirement for beryllium, cadmium, lead, 
manganese, and nickel compounds. The copper foundry area source 
category was listed due to emissions of lead, manganese, and nickel 
compounds, and the other nonferrous foundry area source category was 
listed due to emissions of chromium, lead, and nickel compounds.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of 
issuing a MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2), elect to 
promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which provide 
for the use of generally available control technology or management 
practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' As explained in the preamble to the proposed NESHAP, EPA 
proposed, and is finalizing in today's action, standards based on 
generally available control technology and management practices (GACT).
    We are issuing these final standards in response to a court-ordered 
deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for these three foundry 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by June 
15, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C., March 2006)).

III. Revision to the Source Category List

    This notice announces two revisions to the area source category 
list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant 
to section 112(c)(3) of the CAA. The first revision changes the name of 
the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' source category to ``Aluminum 
Foundries.'' The second revision changes the name of the ``Nonferrous 
Foundries, nec'' source category to ``Other Nonferrous Foundries.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed 
revisions to the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    This final rule contains several clarifications to the proposed 
rule as a result of public comments. We explain the reasons for these 
changes in detail in the summary of comments and responses (section VI 
of this preamble).
    First, we established that the production from calendar year 2010 
is used to determine if your existing aluminum, copper, or other 
nonferrous foundry melted more than 600 tpy of aluminum, copper, other 
nonferrous metals, and all associated alloys and, therefore, is subject 
to the rule. If a foundry with an existing melting operation increases 
production after 2010 such that the annual metal melt production equals 
or exceeds 600 tpy, it must notify the permitting authority within 30 
days after the end of that calendar year and comply with the rule 
within 2 years following the date of the notification. If a foundry 
with an existing melting operation subsequently decreases annual 
production after 2010 such that it produces less than 600 tpy, the 
foundry remains subject to the rule. Foundries with new melting 
operations are subject to the rule if the annual metal melt capacity at 
the time of startup equals or exceeds 600 tpy. If a foundry with a new 
melting operation increases capacity after startup such that the annual 
metal melt capacity equals or

[[Page 30368]]

exceeds 600 tpy, it must notify the permitting authority within 30 days 
after the capacity increase and comply with the rule at the time of the 
capacity increase. If a foundry with a new melting operation 
subsequently decreases annual capacity after startup such that the 
capacity is less than 600 tpy, the foundry remains subject to the rule.
    Second, we revised the rule to clarify that the production from 
calendar year 2010 for existing sources (or capacity at the time of 
startup for new sources) is used to determine if you are a small copper 
or other nonferrous foundry or a large copper or other nonferrous 
foundry. Large foundries are subject to both management practices and 
particulate matter (PM) emission limits.
    The final rule also addresses comments on production levels that 
may fluctuate above or below the 6,000 tpy annual copper and other 
nonferrous metal melt production (excluding aluminum) and whether the 
PM/metal HAP control requirements apply to copper and other nonferrous 
foundries when the melt production rises above or falls below 6,000 
tpy. If a small copper or other nonferrous foundry with an existing 
melting operation increases production after the 2010 calendar year 
such that the annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt production 
equals or exceeds 6,000 tons, the foundry must submit a notification of 
foundry reclassification to the Administrator (or his or her authorized 
representative) within 30 days after the end of that calendar year and 
comply with the requirements for large copper or other nonferrous 
foundries no later than 2 years after the date of the foundry's 
notification that the annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt 
production equaled or exceeded 6,000 tons. If a large copper or other 
nonferrous foundry with an existing melting operation subsequently 
decreases production such that the quantity of copper and other 
nonferrous metal melted is less than 6,000 tpy, it remains a large 
copper or other nonferrous foundry.
    If, subsequent to start-up, a new source small copper or other 
nonferrous foundry increases its melting operation capacity such that 
the annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt capacity equals or 
exceeds 6,000 tons, the foundry must submit a notification of foundry 
reclassification to the Administrator (or his or her authorized 
representative) within 30 days after the increase in capacity and 
comply with the requirements for large copper or other nonferrous 
foundries at the time of the capacity increase. If a new source large 
copper or other nonferrous foundry subsequently decreases metal melt 
capacity such that the capacity is less than 6,000 tpy, it remains a 
large copper or other nonferrous foundry and must continue to comply 
with the PM/metal HAP control requirements.
    We further clarified in the final rule that, in determining whether 
a source's ``annual metal melt production'' (for existing sources) and 
``annual metal melt capacity'' (for new sources) exceeds 600 tpy, 
sources must identify the total amount of only aluminum, copper, and 
other nonferrous metal melted for existing sources (or the capacity to 
melt only aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metal for new 
sources), and not the total amount of all types of metal melted (or the 
capacity to melt all metals for new sources). The comments EPA received 
noted that this clarification is particularly important for aluminum, 
copper, and other nonferrous melting operations that are co-located 
with ferrous metal melting operations. Similarly, we also clarified 
that the 6,000 tpy threshold between small and large copper and other 
nonferrous foundries (excluding aluminum foundries) is based on the 
annual amount of copper and other nonferrous metal (excluding aluminum) 
that is melted.
    We revised the recordkeeping requirements to remove the requirement 
to record the date and time of each melting operation. Several 
commenters, specifically for smaller sources, expressed that the burden 
of recording and keeping these records would not have provided useful 
documentation that the required management practices were being 
followed. We have added a provision to the final rule that requires 
monthly inspections to document that the management practices are being 
followed during melting operations.
    We also adjusted the visible emission (VE) monitoring requirements 
to allow a reduction from daily to weekly observations after 30 
consecutive days of no VE instead of 90 consecutive days. Several 
commenters noted that there are some special occasions when the cause 
of VE cannot be remedied within 3 hours as proposed. We changed the VE 
requirements to parallel those for bag leak detection systems, which 
allow more than 3 hours if the owner or operator identifies the 
specific conditions in a monitoring plan, adequately explains why more 
than 3 hours is necessary, and demonstrates that the requested time 
will alleviate the problem as expeditiously as practicable.
    Based on our survey results and a review of operating permits, we 
expect most (if not all) large copper and other nonferrous foundries 
will use a fabric filter to control emissions from melting operations. 
However, it is conceivable that a new or existing foundry could use a 
device other than a fabric filter. We revised the monitoring 
requirements for large copper and other nonferrous foundries that use a 
control device other than a fabric filter to require that they submit a 
request to use alternative monitoring procedures as required by the 
General Provisions (section 63.8(f)(4)). Submitting this request is 
consistent with EPA's requirements and procedures for alternative 
monitoring.
    Finally, we have clarified that the final rule does not include 
other source categories, such as secondary aluminum production, 
secondary copper production, secondary nonferrous metal production, and 
primary copper smelting. We have explicitly stated in the rule that 
primary and secondary metal melting operations are not subject to this 
foundry rule. We clarified the definition of foundries to include the 
casting of complex metal shapes and to exclude the products cast by 
primary and secondary metal production facilities (e.g., sows, ingots, 
bars, anode copper, rods, and copper cake).

V. Summary of Final Standards

A. Is My Foundry Subject to This Subpart?

    The three source categories subject to this rule include aluminum 
foundries, copper foundries, and other nonferrous foundries. Any 
aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous foundry is subject to this 
subpart if it (1) is an area source defined by 40 CFR 63.2, (2) has an 
annual metal melt production in calendar year 2010 for existing 
affected sources or an annual metal melt capacity at startup for new 
affected sources of 600 tpy or more, and (3) is an aluminum foundry 
that uses material containing ``aluminum foundry HAP,'' a copper 
foundry that uses material containing ``copper foundry HAP,'' or an 
other nonferrous foundry uses material containing ``other nonferrous 
foundry HAP'' (as these terms are defined in more detail below).
    Material containing ``aluminum foundry HAP'' is any material that 
contains beryllium, cadmium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or 
equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or contains manganese in 
amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal). 
Material containing ``copper foundry HAP'' is any material that 
contains lead or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent 
by weight (as the metal), or

[[Page 30369]]

contains manganese in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by 
weight (as the metal). Material containing ``other nonferrous foundry 
HAP'' is any material that contains chromium, lead, or nickel in 
amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal). 
The owner or operator must determine whether material contains 
aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous foundry HAP, for example, by 
using formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such 
as the material safety data sheet (MSDS).

B. Do These Standards Apply to My Source?

    The standards apply to the melting operations (the affected source) 
at foundries subject to the rule as discussed above. More specifically, 
the affected source is (and the standards apply to) (1) the collection 
of all aluminum foundry melting operations that melt any material 
containing aluminum foundry HAP, (2) the collection of all copper 
foundry melting operations that melt any material containing copper 
foundry HAP, and (3) the collection of all other nonferrous foundry 
melting operations that melt any material containing other nonferrous 
foundry HAP. ``Melting operations'' means the collection of furnaces 
(e.g., induction, reverberatory, crucible, tower, dry hearth) used to 
melt metal ingot, alloyed ingot and/or metal scrap to produce molten 
metal that is poured into molds to make castings.
    A foundry is an existing affected source if construction or 
reconstruction of the melting operations commenced on or before 
February 9, 2009. A foundry is a new affected source if construction or 
reconstruction of the melting operations commenced after February 9, 
2009. Because the affected source is the collection of all the melting 
operations at, for example, a copper foundry, addition of new melting 
equipment at an existing affected source (i.e., a source constructed 
before February 9, 2009) does not subject the foundry to the GACT 
standards for a new affected source. Furthermore, the standards for a 
new affected source would only apply to an aluminum, copper or other 
nonferrous foundry that is constructed or reconstructed after February 
9, 2009.

C. When Must I Comply With These Standards?

    The owner or operator of an existing affected source is required to 
comply with the rule no later than June 27, 2011. The owner or operator 
of a new affected source is required to comply by June 25, 2009 or upon 
startup of the source, whichever occurs later.

D. What Are the Final Standards?

    These final standards establish that the following management 
practices are GACT for all new and existing affected sources at 
aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries: (1) Cover or enclose 
melting furnaces that are equipped with covers or enclosures during the 
melting process, to the extent practicable (e.g., except when access is 
needed, including, but not limited to, charging, alloy addition, and 
tapping); and (2) purchase only scrap material that has been depleted 
(to the extent practicable) of ``aluminum foundry HAP,'' ``copper 
foundry HAP'', or ``other nonferrous foundry HAP'' in the materials 
charged to the melting furnace(s), excluding HAP metals that are 
required to be added for the production of alloyed castings or that are 
required to meet written specifications for the casting. Owners or 
operators of affected sources must develop and operate under a written 
management practices plan for minimizing emissions from melting 
operations that apply the two techniques described above. The rule also 
requires owners or operators to retain the plan and the appropriate 
records to demonstrate that the two techniques are used during melting 
operations. Both EPA and the State permitting authority can request to 
review the management practices plan at their discretion.
    In addition, the owner or operator of an existing affected source 
at a large copper foundry and other nonferrous foundry (i.e., one that 
melts at least 6,000 tpy of copper and other nonferrous metal, 
excluding aluminum) is required to achieve a PM control efficiency of 
at least 95.0 percent or an outlet PM concentration of at most 0.015 
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). The owner or operator of 
a new affected source at a large copper foundry or other nonferrous 
foundry must achieve a PM control efficiency of at least 99.0 percent 
or an outlet PM concentration of at most 0.010 gr/dscf.

E. What Are the Testing and Monitoring Requirements?

1. Performance Test
    No performance tests are required for an aluminum foundry or for a 
small copper or other nonferrous foundry (i.e., one that melts less 
than 6,000 tpy of copper and other nonferrous metal, excluding 
aluminum) because they are subject only to the management practices as 
described in 63.11550(a). The owner or operator of any existing or any 
new affected source at a large copper or other nonferrous foundry is 
required to conduct a one-time initial performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM/metal HAP standard. The owner or operator is 
required to test PM emissions from melting operations using EPA Method 
5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) or EPA Method 17 (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-6).
    A performance test is not required for an existing affected source 
if a prior performance test has been conducted within 5 years of the 
compliance date using the methods required by this final rule, and 
either (1) no process changes have been made since the test, or (2) the 
owner or operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting 
authority that the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.
2. Monitoring Requirements
    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source (i.e., 
the collection of melting operations as defined in section 63.11556 of 
this final rule) is required to record information to document 
conformance with the management practices plan, including conducting 
monthly inspections, to document that the management practices are 
being followed.
    For existing affected sources at large copper or other nonferrous 
foundries where PM emissions are controlled by a fabric filter, the 
owner or operator is required to conduct daily observations of VE from 
the fabric filter outlet during melting operations. We do not expect 
any VE from a fabric filter that is properly designed, operated, and 
maintained. Should any of the daily observations reveal any VE, the 
owner or operator must initiate corrective action to determine the 
cause of the VE within 1 hour and alleviate the cause of the emissions 
within 3 hours of the observations by taking whatever corrective 
actions are necessary. The owner or operator may take more than 3 hours 
to alleviate the cause of VE if the owner or operator has already 
identified the specific condition requiring more time in a monitoring 
plan. In addition to identifying the condition in the plan, the owner 
or operator must also adequately explain in the monitoring plan why it 
is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 hours of the time 
the VE occurs, provide an estimate of the time that it would take to 
alleviate the cause, and demonstrate that the requested time will 
ensure alleviation of this condition

[[Page 30370]]

as expeditiously as practicable. The owner or operator must record the 
results of the daily observations and any corrective actions taken in 
response to VE. Owners or operators of large copper or other nonferrous 
foundries could decrease the frequency of observations from daily to 
weekly if the foundry operates for at least 30 consecutive days without 
any VE. The owner or operator must maintain adequate records to support 
the claim of no VE for the 30-day operating period. After the foundry 
converts to a weekly observation schedule, if any VE are observed, the 
foundry must revert back to daily observations. The foundry may 
subsequently reduce the observations to weekly if it operates for at 
least 30 consecutive days without any VE.
    As an alternative to the VE observations, an owner or operator of 
an existing affected source at a large copper or other nonferrous 
foundry may elect to operate and maintain a bag leak detection system 
as described below for a new affected source at a large copper or other 
nonferrous foundry.
    The owner or operator of a new affected source (i.e., collection of 
melting operations) at a large copper or other nonferrous foundry must 
install, operate and maintain a bag leak detection system to monitor 
the affected source. The owner or operator of a new affected source at 
a large copper or other nonferrous foundry must also prepare a site-
specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. As with 
monitoring the VE for an existing affected source, EPA expects that a 
properly designed, operated and maintained filter system will not 
trigger the leak detection system.
    Our study of the industry indicates that fabric filters are used as 
the control device for melting furnaces; however, a new or existing 
melting operation may use some other type of control device to meet the 
PM emission standards. If a large copper or other nonferrous foundry 
uses a control device other than a fabric filter for a new or existing 
melting operation to comply with the PM emission standards, the owner 
or operator must submit a request to use an alternative monitoring 
procedure as required by the General Provisions in section 63.8(f)(4).

F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The owner or operator of an existing or new affected source is 
required to comply with certain notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of the final rule. Each 
owner or operator of an affected source is required to submit an 
Initial Notification according to the requirements section 63.9(a) 
through (d) and a Notification of Compliance Status according to the 
requirements in section 63.9(h) of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). In addition to the information required in 
63.9(h), the owner or operator must indicate how it plans to comply 
with the requirements.
    Each owner or operator of an existing or new affected source is 
required to keep records to document compliance with the required 
management practices. If the melting operations use a cover or 
enclosure, the owner or operator must identify which melting furnaces 
are equipped with a cover or enclosure, and record the results of the 
monthly inspection in order to demonstrate compliance with the 
procedures in the management practices plan for covers or enclosures. 
These records may be in the form of a checklist.
    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source must 
also keep records of the metal scrap purchased to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirement that only metal scrap that has been 
depleted of HAP metals prior to charging can be used in the melting 
furnace(s).
    Owners or operators of existing affected sources at large copper or 
other nonferrous foundries equipped with a fabric filter that choose to 
comply with the PM standard through visual emission observations must 
maintain records of all VE monitoring data including:
     Date, place, and time of the monitoring event;
     Person conducting the monitoring;
     Technique or method used;
     Operating conditions during the activity;
     Results, including the date, time, and duration of the 
period from the time the monitoring indicated a problem to the time 
that monitoring indicated proper operation.
     Maintenance or other corrective action.
    Recordkeeping requirements also apply to facilities that use bag 
leak detection systems, including records of the bag leak detection 
system output, bag leak detection system adjustments, the date and time 
of all bag leak detection system alarms, and for each valid alarm, the 
time corrective action was taken, the corrective action taken, and the 
date on which corrective action was completed.
    Existing affected sources at small copper and other nonferrous 
foundries (excluding aluminum) must keep records to demonstrate that 
the annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt production is less 
than 6,000 tpy for each calendar year.
    Similarly, new affected sources at small copper and other 
nonferrous foundries (excluding aluminum) must keep records to 
demonstrate that the annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt 
capacity is less than 6,000 tpy for each calendar year.
    If a deviation from the rule requirements occurs, an affected 
source is required to submit a compliance report for that reporting 
period. The final rule, section 63.11553(e), specifies the information 
requirements for such compliance reports.

G. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?

    This final rule exempts the aluminum foundries, copper foundries, 
and other nonferrous foundries area source categories from title V 
permitting requirements unless the affected source is otherwise 
required by law to obtain a title V permit. For example, sources that 
have title V permits because they are major sources under the criteria 
pollutant program (i.e., for PM, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 
oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead) would maintain those permits.

VI. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received public comments on the proposed rule from a total of 24 
commenters. These commenters included eight companies, seven trade 
associations, five representatives of State agencies, three private 
citizens, and one environmental organization. Sections VI.A through 
VI.I of this preamble summarize the comments and provide our responses.

A. GACT Issues

1. Selection of GACT
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards 
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (3), is arbitrary and capricious 
because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue GACT 
standards. The commenter also claimed that the proposed standards are 
based solely on cost and are thus unlawful and arbitrary.
    The commenter claims that CAA section 112(d)(5) does not direct EPA 
to set standards based on what is cost effective; rather, according to 
the

[[Page 30371]]

commenter EPA must establish GACT based on the ``methods, practices and 
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic 
impacts.'' The commenter stated that because cost effectiveness is not 
relevant under CAA section 112(d)(5), the reliance on cost 
effectiveness as the sole determining factor in establishing GACT 
renders the proposed standards unlawful.
    Response: As the commenter recognizes, in section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is 
titled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. See CAA section 
112(d)(5) (emphasis added).

    There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section 
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not 
dispute that EPA listed the aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous 
foundries area source categories pursuant to section 112(c). Second, 
section 112(d)(5) provides that for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA ``may, in lieu of'' the authorities provided in 
section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to 
section 112(d)(5). Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards 
established under that provision ``require the maximum degree of 
reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also known as MACT). Section 
112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the ``maximum degree of 
reduction in emissions'' for new and existing sources. See section 
112(d)(3).\2\ Webster's dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of'' to 
mean ``in the place of'' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New 
Riverside University (1994). Thus, section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to 
promulgate standards under section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use 
of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to section 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition precedent 
for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that the area 
source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3), which is the case here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Specifically, section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree of 
emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is known 
as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission reduction 
shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, and for 
existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the 
Administrator has emissions information. Section 112(d)(2) directs 
EPA to consider whether more stringent--so called ``beyond-the-
floor''--limits are technologically achievable considering, among 
other things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction.
    \3\ Section 112(d)(5) also references section 112(f). See CAA 
section 112(f)(5) (titled ``Area Sources''), which provides that EPA 
is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards under 
section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and for which an emission standard is 
issued pursuant to section 112(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing 
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The 
commenter is incorrect. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a 
MACT analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated 
so expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to 
conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis 
before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, 
Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source 
categories listed under section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what 
EPA has done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA need not justify its exercise of discretion in 
choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area source listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA still must have a reasoned basis for the GACT 
determination for the particular area source category. The legislative 
history supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to 
encompass:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

See Senate Report on the 1990 Amendments to the Act (S. Rep. No. 101-
228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). The discussion in the Senate 
report clearly provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what 
constitutes GACT for the area source category.
    Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major 
sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting 
GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did not 
allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources 
pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between section 
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress 
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area 
sources.''
    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source categories at issue here under section 
112(d)(5) and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection 
of GACT for these area source categories. As explained in the proposed 
rule and below, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management 
practices that reduce HAP emissions at aluminum, copper and other 
nonferrous foundries, including those at both major and area sources. 
See 74 FR 6512. In its evaluation, EPA used information from an EPA 
survey of the three source categories, discussed options for control 
with industry trade associations, and reviewed operating permits to 
identify the emission controls and management practices that are 
currently used to control PM and metal HAP emissions. We also 
considered technologies and practices at major and area sources in 
similar categories. For example, we reviewed the management practices 
required by the area source standards for iron and steel foundries (40 
CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ).
    In our evaluation, we identified certain management practices and 
PM control techniques that have been implemented at a significant 
number of foundries. Of the management practices identified, two in 
particular were used frequently: (1) Cover or enclose melting furnaces 
that are equipped with covers or enclosures during the melting process, 
and (2) purchase only scrap that has been depleted (to the extent 
practicable) of HAP metals in the materials charged to the melting 
furnace. Of the PM control technologies identified, we found that large 
copper and other nonferrous foundries (i.e., foundries melting 6,000 
tpy or more of copper and other nonferrous metal) frequently used 
control technologies to reduce PM/HAP emissions, while smaller (less 
than 6,000 tpy) did not. Furthermore, we found that large copper and 
other nonferrous foundries used fabric filters as the primary technique 
to reduce PM/HAP metal emissions. The

[[Page 30372]]

wide use of the management techniques and PM controls indicates that 
such practices are generally available for the area source categories 
at issue.
    The commenter further argues that EPA inappropriately chose the 
management practices and controls described above as GACT based solely 
on costs, and according to the commenter, cost is not relevant to GACT 
determinations and as such the standards are unlawful. We disagree. 
First, contrary to the commenter's assertions, EPA did not select GACT 
on cost alone, as the discussion above supports. Second, and also 
contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Agency's consideration of 
cost effectiveness in establishing GACT and the Agency's views on what 
is a cost-effective requirement under section 112(d)(5) are relevant. 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has stated that cost 
effectiveness is a reasonable measure of cost as long as the statute 
does not mandate a specific method of determining cost. See Husqvarna 
AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (finding EPA's decision 
to consider costs on a per ton of emissions removed basis reasonable 
because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost 
analysis).
    In addition to evaluating what was generally available to the 
foundries at issue, we considered costs and economic impacts in 
determining GACT. We estimated the cost of compliance for the proposed 
rule to include a one-time first year cost of $656,000, a recurring 
total annualized cost of $645,000 per year, and an average of $2,000 
per year per plant. (74 FR 6522). To the best of our knowledge and 
based on the information we have available, the management practices 
are not costly to implement and would not result in any significant 
adverse economic impact on any foundry. Our economic impact analysis 
estimated that the proposed rule would have an impact of less than 0.05 
percent of sales (74 FR 6523). We believe the consideration of costs 
and economic impacts is especially important for determining GACT for 
the aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries because, given 
their relatively low level of HAP emissions, requiring additional 
controls would result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very 
high costs for modest incremental improvement in control.
    Finally, even though not required, EPA did provide a rationale for 
why it set a GACT standard in the proposed rule. In the proposal, we 
explained that the facilities in the source categories at issue here 
are already well controlled for the urban HAP for which the source 
category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 74 FR 6517 and 
6522. Consideration of costs and economic impacts proves especially 
important for the well-controlled area sources at issue in this final 
action. Given the current, well-controlled emission levels, a MACT 
floor determination, where costs cannot be considered, could result in 
only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest 
incremental improvement in control for the area source category.
2. Cost Effectiveness of the GACT Standards
    Comment: One commenter claimed that EPA did not undertake 
sufficient analysis to support the conclusion that ``given their 
relatively low levels of HAP emissions, requiring additional controls 
would result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high 
costs for modest incremental improvement in control.'' (See 74 FR 
6517.) As an example, the commenter said that for copper and other 
nonferrous foundries that melt 6,000 tpy or more, EPA determined that 
the majority of facilities currently operate using a control system for 
PM, and that those controls achieve a reduction in PM emissions of 95 
percent. According to the commenter, EPA did not consider setting a 
tighter standard despite the fact that of the eight facilities that 
reported the efficiency of their add-on controls, four achieved an 
efficiency of 98 percent or higher. The commenter stated that when EPA 
analyzed and rejected stronger control options, the analysis was based 
solely on the cost-effectiveness of those controls. The commenter also 
asserted that EPA should not have rejected the option of requiring all 
copper and other nonferrous foundries to utilize add-on controls 
because, in the commenter's view, such controls are ``generally 
available'' and ``effective for controlling emissions of PM and metal 
HAP from copper and nonferrous foundries.''
    The commenter noted that EPA determined that it would be overly 
costly to require facilities to install new PM control devices for the 
under 6,000 tpy subcategory because the cost effectiveness was $50,000 
per ton of PM and $1 million per ton of metal HAP. According to the 
commenter, EPA neither claims that the economic impacts are too great 
based on the profitability of these plants, nor determines how 
economically significant it would be for such a plant to make the 
necessary investment in these controls.
    Response: EPA properly issued standards for the area source 
categories at issue here under section 112(d)(5), and cost 
effectiveness was not the only consideration in setting the standards.
    In establishing GACT standards for all three types of foundries, 
EPA determined that all affected sources subject to this rule must meet 
two management practices applicable to the melting operations to reduce 
the HAP emissions. First, covers or enclosures are used during the 
melting operation on furnaces that have them to suppress emissions. 
Second, the purchased scrap is depleted to the extent practicable of 
HAP metals that are contaminants and are not necessary to meet product 
specifications. EPA found that most of the sources in the survey 
employed one or both of these methods to control HAP emissions from the 
melting process. Affected sources must use these two practices to 
comply with this area source standard. The general use of these methods 
and their acceptable costs and economic impacts led EPA to choose these 
as part of the GACT standards applicable to aluminum, copper and other 
nonferrous foundries.
    For existing large copper and other nonferrous foundries, EPA 
determined these affected sources have generally available to them PM 
control techniques that result in a PM control efficiency of 95 
percent. The survey conducted prior to the proposal indicated that the 
large copper and other nonferrous foundries used operating practices 
and add-on control devices to control PM emissions. EPA requested test 
data as part of the industry survey, but none was provided. Sources did 
report control efficiencies, but in some cases, the control levels for 
the baghouses and cartridge filters were engineering estimates or 
equipment manufacturer specifications.
    In choosing the management practices for foundries in all three 
source categories and additional PM controls on large copper and other 
nonferrous foundries, EPA looked to the discussion on GACT as found in 
the Senate report on the legislation (Senate report No. 101-228, Dec. 
20, 1989), which describes GACT as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emission controls systems.

    The information we collected supports a 95 percent control level 
for PM (as a surrogate for metal HAP) as GACT for these two categories 
of existing area sources. While the data collected during the survey 
shows that

[[Page 30373]]

some sources reported a 98 percent PM emission control efficiency, the 
data also showed that the control equipment commercially available and 
appropriate for application to these sources (e.g., baghouses) does not 
result in control efficiencies of 98 percent on a continuing basis. See 
Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. 
Cir. 2004) (EPA may appropriately account for operational variability 
in setting section 112(d) emission standards).
    EPA also determined that the cost associated with replacing 
existing control equipment that achieves 95 percent control with newer 
equipment to achieve 98 percent control would result in a cost and cost 
effectiveness not justified by the incremental reduction in emissions. 
For example, consider a copper foundry melting 6,000 tpy of copper in 
electric induction furnaces with a fabric filter as the control device 
operating at 95 percent control efficiency. Uncontrolled emissions of 
PM (at 1.5 lb/ton) and HAP (at 5 percent of PM) of 4.5 tpy and 0.23 
tpy, respectively, would be reduced to 0.225 and 0.0113 tpy, 
respectively, assuming the 95 percent control efficiency of the 
existing fabric filter. Either a new baghouse in series or an expanded 
baghouse, both with newer fabric for the filter (e.g., membrane bags) 
and a lower air-to-cloth ratio, would be required to increase the 
control efficiency from 95 percent to 98 percent. At the new 98 percent 
control level, emissions of PM and HAP would be reduced to 0.09 tpy and 
0.0045 tpy, respectively. The capital cost of the new or expanded 
baghouse would be $520,000 with a total annualized cost of $119,000 per 
year (sized for a flow of 16,500 actual cubic feet per minute). The 
incremental cost effectiveness for the upgrade would be $880,000/ton 
for PM and $18,000,000/ton for HAP, which is a very high cost 
effectiveness to achieve an additional HAP emission reduction of only 
0.0067 tpy (0.0113 tpy at 95 percent control versus 0.0045 tpy at 98 
percent control). As the commenter noted and quoted, we also presented 
at proposal the very high cost effectiveness of requiring small copper 
and other nonferrous foundries (i.e., all of the copper and nonferrous 
foundries subject to the rule) to install PM controls. We do not 
believe the cost numbers presented here and in the proposal are 
reasonable for requiring PM controls for melting furnaces at all copper 
and other nonferrous foundries.
    Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Agency's consideration 
of cost effectiveness in establishing GACT and the Agency's views on 
what is a cost-effective requirement under section 112(d)(5) are 
relevant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has stated that 
cost effectiveness is a reasonable measure of cost as long as the 
statute does not mandate a specific method of determining cost. See 
Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. App. D.C. 118, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C. 
Cir. 2001) (Finding EPA's decision to consider costs on a per ton of 
emissions removed basis reasonable because CAA section 213 did not 
mandate a specific method of cost analysis). Section 112(d)(5) does not 
mandate a specific method for considering cost when setting GACT 
standards.
    The commenter has provided no information to support its assertion 
that add-on control requirements for small copper and other nonferrous 
foundries are generally available for melting operations in the two 
source categories. The commenter also failed to provide any information 
indicating that our cost- effectiveness determinations were 
unreasonable and likewise failed to provide any information concerning 
the economic impacts associated with requiring the standards that the 
commenter suggests represent GACT. The GACT standards for the three 
foundry area source categories are consistent with the requirements of 
section 112(d)(5).
    Comment: One commenter questioned the authority for the 
promulgation of the GACT standards. The commenter stated it is 
inconsistent with the CAA section 112(d)(1) schedules to promulgate 
this new area source standard after the expiration of the schedules. 
According to the commenter, it would be more appropriate to promulgate 
GACT standards under CAA section 112(f)(2)(C) to comply with the court 
order. The commenter stated he did not think the court intends to order 
EPA to violate the time frame specified by the CAA.
    Response: The commenter is incorrect. In Sierra Club v. Johnson, 
(D.D.C. 2006), the Court held, among other things, that EPA violated a 
mandatory duty by failing to establish emission standards for area 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) by 
the date specified in the statute. The Court issued an order in March 
2006, requiring the Agency to promulgate emission standards for the 
area source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B). In August 2006, the Court issued an opinion establishing 
deadlines for issuing the standards. By issuing emission standards for 
the three area source categories at issue in this rule, the Agency is 
acting wholly consistently with the schedule set forth in the Court's 
August 2006 opinion, as amended. The commenter's thoughts about what 
the Court ``intend[ed] to order'' are wholly irrelevant. The order 
speaks for itself, and the Agency continues to comply with the terms of 
the order.
    Moreover, because the requirements of the Court's order are 
unambiguous, the commenter's thoughts about the ``appropriate[ness]'' 
of promulgating GACT standards under CAA section 112(f)(2)(C) are 
similarly irrelevant. Furthermore, the commenter fails to recognize 
that section 112(f) of the CAA addresses the second stage of standard 
setting under section 112, and this phase occurs 8 years after the 
initial promulgation of a technology-based standard under section 
112(d). This rule marks the promulgation of a technology-based standard 
under section 112(d). If EPA sought to conduct a residual risk analysis 
for these categories, it would do so 8 years after issuance of the 
section 112(d) standard. The commenter also fails to recognize that 
residual risk review is not required for area sources where the 
standards are based on GACT, as is the case in this rule. See CAA 
112(f)(5).
2. Estimates of Impacts of the Proposed Rule
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA did not estimate the 
emissions reductions or cost effectiveness associated with the 
management practices that represent GACT. The commenter noted that EPA 
estimated the costs associated with the rule, but not the emissions 
reductions, and consequently, did not show that GACT was cost 
effective. The commenter asked that EPA identify the amount of HAP 
reductions associated with the rule, and reconsider the cost 
effectiveness and potential impacts on area sources (almost all of 
which are small businesses) if the environmental benefits are minimal.
    One commenter stated it was the intent of the CAA that the area 
source program results in reductions in emissions from area sources of 
hazardous air pollution and expressed disappointment that EPA's 
proposal states ``we estimate that the only impacts associated with the 
proposed rule are the compliance requirements (i.e., monitoring, 
reporting, recordkeeping and testing).'' The commenter was concerned 
that such proposals are merely paperwork exercises and are not 
responsive to Congress' intent to reduce hazardous air pollution when 
it included the area source provisions in the CAA. The

[[Page 30374]]

commenter recommended that in this rule and in future area source 
proposals, EPA incorporate provisions that will provide additional 
public health protection from the adverse effects of emissions of HAP 
from area sources.
    One commenter stated that, as described in the CAA section 
112(k)(1), the purpose of the area source program is to ``achieve a 
substantial reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants from 
area sources and an equivalent reduction in the public health risks 
associated with such sources * * *'' According to the commenter, the 
approach laid out by EPA in the proposed rule does not reflect this 
purpose and instead focuses entirely on cost estimates. The commenter 
stated that the preamble did not contain any discussion or estimate of 
the current emissions of HAP from the sources to be regulated or the 
public health risks associated with those sources, and that there was 
no discussion of the expected benefits of the proposed rule.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions that EPA did 
not show that GACT for these sources was cost effective. We examined 
all available HAP emission reduction approaches and determined GACT, 
considering costs, economic impacts, and the cost effectiveness of PM 
control devices (74 FR 6518 and 6523). Few additional quantifiable 
emission reductions at existing affected sources are expected to result 
from the requirements of this rule because most of the existing 
affected sources are already implementing the process improvements, 
management practices, and control devices required by this rule. The 
requirements in the final rule, however, will prevent any existing 
facilities from making changes that could result in less stringent 
requirements and an increase in HAP emissions. Codifying these 
requirements will result in fewer emissions from new affected sources 
at large copper and other nonferrous foundries due to the more 
stringent PM/metal HAP emission standards and continuous monitoring by 
bag leak detectors. In addition, we expect that the increased attention 
to the implementation of management practices, recordkeeping, and the 
monitoring of control devices required by the rule will result in 
additional emission reductions because the management practices will be 
applied more consistently and uniformly, and control device monitoring 
will result in shorter times that fabric filter bags are allowed to 
leak. The management practices will also focus more attention on the 
raw materials (metals) being melted and will promote pollution 
prevention for reducing HAP emissions.
    Although we are, in large part, codifying the status quo, the 
emission reductions we are obtaining, as compared to 1990 levels, are 
significant because these facilities have implemented controls over the 
past 20 years. For example, HAP emissions reported to the 1990 Toxics 
Release Inventory (TRI) by 86 foundries in these three source 
categories totaled 18.2 tpy compared to 13.6 tpy in 2005 with 132 
plants reporting (i.e., there has been a large decrease in emissions 
even though over 50 percent more plants were reporting to the TRI). 
These reductions are consistent with the goals of the Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy, which uses 1990 as the baseline year and measures reductions 
against that baseline.
    Finally, one commenter requests that EPA incorporate provisions 
that will provide additional public health protection from HAP 
emissions. In this rule, we set technology-based standards pursuant to 
section 112(d)(5) for three area source categories. The emission 
control requirements in the final rule reflect GACT. Although assessing 
public health risks is not a part of the GACT determination, we believe 
that the rule requirements will provide important public health 
protection, as discussed above.
3. GACT Determination for PM
    Comment: One commenter stated that it was unclear from the 
administrative record how EPA set the standards for control 
efficiencies and emission limits for copper and other nonferrous 
foundries. Based on the limited data available to EPA, the commenter 
claims that it is difficult to establish standards that foundries can 
reliably and consistently meet. The commenter requested that EPA 
provide its detailed analysis on how the control efficiencies and 
emission limits were established to allow the commenter to determine if 
the standards appropriately represent GACT.
    Response: EPA developed the control efficiencies for copper and 
other nonferrous foundries based on available operating permit 
information and industry survey responses. The summary of survey 
responses from copper and other nonferrous foundries is included in the 
supporting docket materials for the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0236, items 0012, 0021, and 0022).
    EPA developed the alternate emission limit from control equipment 
(baghouse) specifications and performance test data from other NESHAP 
background/compliance demonstration information involving similar 
industries (e.g., foundries), similar emission sources (e.g., melting 
furnaces), and similar control devices (e.g., baghouses).
    Industry stakeholders stated that a 95 percent standard will be a 
significant (and costly) issue for some facilities to demonstrate 
compliance because it is difficult or impossible in some cases to 
sample the inlet according to the test method criteria because of the 
configuration of the duct work. Sampling the outlet is easier because 
it is a straight duct or stack. We investigated alternate forms of an 
emission limit used in similar source categories and found that 
baghouses in secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities were 
subject to an emission limit of 0.015 gr/dscf for the outlet.
    For existing affected sources, the 0.015 gr/dscf limit provides at 
least the same level of HAP emission reduction as GACT, which requires 
a 95 percent reduction, based on secondary nonferrous metals processing 
project data (subpart TTTTTT), as well as information and test data 
from other similar industries that show well-designed and operated 
baghouses can achieve the limit. We proposed this limit as an 
alternative to GACT to provide flexibility and to provide a more 
straightforward way of demonstrating compliance.
    A similar decision was made for the new affected source emission 
limit, i.e., 99 percent control efficiency. The alternative limit 
proposed was 0.010 gr/dscf, which was also based on data from the 
secondary nonferrous metals processing NESHAP (subpart TTTTTT). We 
proposed an alternative limit for affected sources at large copper and 
other nonferrous foundries that provides at least the same level of HAP 
emission reduction as the 99.0 percent GACT requirement.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA consider providing 
another alternative emissions limit in the proposed regulation, 
particularly because the proposed regulation allows control devices 
other than fabric filters. Specifically, the commenter said that an 
emissions limit expressed in ``pounds of PM per tons of metal (i.e., 
copper and other nonferrous metal) melted'' could be helpful to many 
copper and other nonferrous foundries in demonstrating compliance with 
the applicable emissions limit, especially with a control device other 
than a fabric filter. The commenter noted that the emission limits in 
other foundry rules are often expressed in these units, and this 
alternative limit could allow foundries a more consistent and flexible 
approach to collecting data and demonstrating compliance.

[[Page 30375]]

    Response: We agree that alternative emission standards provide 
additional flexibility; EPA proposed one alternate emission standard 
based on outlet concentrations alone to provide additional flexibility. 
We do not, however, have adequate data or a reasonable basis that would 
allow us to finalize a production-based limit (e.g., ``pound per 
ton''). In addition, the commenter did not provide any data for EPA to 
assess whether a ``pound per ton'' format is appropriate or to 
determine the appropriate and equivalent value in that format.

B. The Source Category Designation

    1. The source categories at issue in this rule are defined as only 
those aluminum, copper or other nonferrous foundries that melt 600 tpy 
or more of aluminum, copper and other nonferrous metals.
    Comment: Six commenters asked that EPA revise the proposed rule to 
base the 600 tpy clarification of the source category only on the 
amount of aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metals melted without 
including the quantity of ferrous metals melted. The commenters noted 
that this is a particular concern for foundries that are predominantly 
iron and steel foundries already subject to an area source standard for 
that source category (40 CFR Part 63, subpart ZZZZZ). The commenters 
stated that iron and steel foundries may melt a small amount of 
aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous metals, but the large majority of 
their production is ferrous castings. One commenter cited an example of 
a small ferrous foundry in Texas that is subject to subpart ZZZZZ that 
melted 900 tons of metal in 2008, which included 22 tons of aluminum 
and copper. According to the commenter, if the 600 tpy threshold 
includes the ferrous metal melted, this facility would be included in 
the source category subject to the standards. The commenter claimed 
that this undue burden would likely force the foundry to abandon its 
small nonferrous operations.
    One commenter stated that foundries that melt primarily ferrous 
metals should not be included in the source category, and therefore 
subject to the rule, because they are not included in the Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) and NAICS codes used by EPA to 
determine the population of affected sources (i.e., ferrous foundries 
are included in separate SIC and NAICS codes specific to iron and steel 
foundries). One commenter requested clarification of the rule's scope 
and was concerned that if the rule is promulgated as proposed, EPA may 
inadvertently regulate sources that are outside the rule's intended 
scope (i.e., area source iron and steel foundries). Consequently, the 
commenter asked that the rule be revised to clarify that it is 
inapplicable to foundries melting predominately ferrous metals.
    Another commenter requested that the 600 tpy threshold be 
determined separately for aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metals 
rather than from the combined total of all three and requested that the 
rule clarify that the threshold is based on actual production and not 
on melting potential or capacity.
    Response: EPA based the 600 tpy threshold on the facilities in the 
1990 TRI that reported under the SIC codes for aluminum, copper, and 
other nonferrous foundries. Foundries melting predominantly iron and 
steel would have reported to TRI under different SIC codes and were not 
included in our 1990 TRI database for the three area source categories 
addressed in this rule. Consequently, when determining whether an area 
source meets the 600 tpy threshold, the source should not include the 
tpy of ferrous metal melted, but rather only include the nonferrous 
metal melted (aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metals) in 
determining its annual production.
    In our analysis of the 1990 TRI emissions data, we could not 
distinguish the quantities of aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous 
metals melted at each facility. We confirmed that some of the foundry 
facilities in the 1990 inventory melted a combination of these metals. 
Consequently, the 600 tpy threshold must be based on the sum of 
aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metals melted at each existing 
affected source, and not based on each type of metal melted separately 
as the commenter suggests (i.e., there is not a 600 tpy threshold for 
each type of nonferrous metal at a single facility).
    We have clarified that for an existing source, the 600 tpy 
threshold is based on the annual metal melt production in calendar year 
2010 and not capacity. However, for a new affected source we use the 
annual metal melt capacity at startup because a new affected source 
must comply at startup (if startup occurs after the date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register), and at startup it would not 
have any history of annual production.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the 600 tpy threshold be 
based solely on the quantity of metals containing foundry HAP and not 
on the total amount of metal melted. The commenter cited as an example 
that a facility melting 599 tpy of metal containing no foundry HAP and 
1 tpy of metal containing foundry HAP would be subject to the rule. On 
the other hand, the commenter stated that a foundry melting 599 tons of 
metal containing foundry HAP would not be subject to the rule. The 
commenter suggested that EPA reconsider the basis of the 600 tpy.
    Another commenter asked for clarification of how the 600 tpy 
threshold should be calculated. Does the 600 tpy of metal (such as 
aluminum) include any aluminum the facility melts regardless of the 
amount of metal HAP (by weight) in the charge material?
    Response: As discussed in the proposal, and clarified again in the 
earlier response to comment, the 600 tpy of metal melted threshold is 
not an applicability threshold. Rather, EPA realized that emissions 
from foundries that melt less than 600 tpy were not included in the 
1990 TRI baseline, which is the basis of EPA's listing of the aluminum, 
copper and other nonferrous foundries area source categories. In 
addition, the 600 tpy threshold was based on the amount of aluminum, 
copper and other nonferrous foundry metal melted regardless of the 
amount of aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP or other nonferrous 
foundry HAP contained in the metal. Defining the threshold in this way 
was necessary because the level of detail regarding the individual HAP 
content was not available for the facilities in the 1990 emission 
inventory. Therefore, as the commenter pointed out, the affected source 
at an aluminum foundry that melts 599 tpy of aluminum that contains no 
aluminum foundry HAP and 1 tpy of aluminum that contains an aluminum 
foundry HAP is subject to this rule.
    Comment: Commenters noted that the rule did not specify the 
baseline year(s) for determining the production level to compare with 
the 600 tpy threshold and also recommended that EPA address annual 
production fluctuations. For example, commenters asked when a facility 
would become subject to the rule and when must the facility demonstrate 
compliance if it initially melted below 600 tpy, but later in time 
melts over 600 tpy of aluminum, copper and other nonferrous metal. One 
commenter suggested that the applicability threshold be based on 
production in 2010 or 2011 to be consistent with the compliance date. 
Another related question posed by the commenter involved the 
applicability of the rule if a foundry initially melted over 600 tpy, 
but in subsequent years melted less than 600 tpy due to economic 
factors or other reasons.
    Response: Pursuant to a court order, this final rule will be signed 
by the

[[Page 30376]]

Administrator by June 15, 2009. We expect that the rule will be 
published in the Federal Register in late June 2009, in which case the 
compliance date for existing sources would be June 2011 (2 years after 
the date of promulgation of the final standards). In light of this 
compliance date, we revised the rule to require that an existing 
foundry use the annual metal melt production for calendar year 2010 to 
determine whether it is in the source category. To provide further 
clarification, we added a definition for ``annual metal melt 
production.'' If the owner or operator of an existing foundry increases 
its annual metal melt production after 2010 such that it equals or 
exceeds 600 tpy in a subsequent year, the owner or operator must notify 
its permitting authority within 30 days after the end of that calendar 
year (e.g., December 2011) and comply with the rule requirements within 
2 years following the end of the calendar year.
    If the foundry's annual metal melt production (the total aluminum, 
copper and other nonferrous foundry metal) exceeds 600 tpy in a 
subsequent year, it is not automatically subject to the GACT 
requirements of the rule. For example, if an aluminum foundry increases 
its annual metal melt production from 525 tpy to 725 tpy in 2011, it 
must also melt materials containing aluminum foundry HAP, as defined in 
section 63.11556, in order to be subject to the rule's GACT 
requirements. If the aluminum foundry does not melt materials that 
contain beryllium, cadmium, lead or nickel in amounts greater than or 
equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as metal), or contains manganese in 
amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as metal), then 
the aluminum foundry is not subject to the GACT requirements.
    If an existing foundry subsequently decreases production such that 
it has an annual metal melt production of less than 600 tpy, the 
foundry remains subject to the rule. We incorporated this requirement 
into the final rule for several reasons. First, we have listed the 
three foundry area source categories under CAA section 112(c)(3), and 
we based the listing and definition of the categories on those 
facilities that melted at least 600 tpy of aluminum, copper, other 
nonferrous metals, and all associated alloys in 1990, regardless if 
they subsequently decreased production. Second, existing foundries 
subject to the rule at promulgation (i.e., with 600 tpy or greater 
metal melt production) will have prepared a management practices plan 
and implemented the management practices. If their annual metal melt 
production falls below 600 tpy for any year subsequent to 2010, EPA 
believes it is reasonable to expect that they keep their management 
practices plan and continue to implement the management practices to 
reduce emissions. Third, because EPA learned that the management 
practices are routine procedures already implemented at most foundries, 
EPA believes that there would be no significant burden for the rule to 
continue to apply if annual metal melt production falls below 600 tpy 
in a calendar year. Finally, if foundries (specifically, existing 
affected sources) on the borderline of 600 tpy of annual metal melt 
production (or capacity for new affected sources) fall above and below 
that level over different years, the time-consuming complexity of 
possibly other State or local permit revisions is a burden on both the 
permitting authority and the foundry.
    We made clarifications for new affected sources that parallel those 
for existing affected sources except that annual metal melt capacity is 
used instead of production because new affected sources must comply at 
startup (provided startup occurs after the date of publication of this 
rule in the Federal Register), and there would be no production history 
at startup.

C. Subcategorization and Applicability Issues

1. Threshold of 6,000 tpy for Copper and Other Nonferrous Foundries
    Comment: Several commenters asked that EPA clarify that the 6,000 
tpy threshold should be determined only from the amount of copper and 
other nonferrous metals melted and would not include the quantity of 
aluminum or ferrous metals melted at the facility. One commenter 
requested that the 6,000 tpy threshold be determined only from the 
copper and other nonferrous metals that contain the foundry HAP (as 
defined in the rule) rather than the total amount of copper and other 
nonferrous metal melted. One commenter provided an example of a foundry 
that melts 5,000 tpy of iron and 2,000 tpy of copper. Under the 
proposed rule, the commenter notes that the furnace would have to be 
equipped with emission controls. The commenter claims this would not be 
consistent with EPA's analysis of cost and cost effectiveness in 
deriving the 6,000 tpy threshold because it was based on retrofitting 
baghouses to furnaces melting only copper and other nonferrous metals.
    Response: The survey results used to develop the threshold included 
facilities that were melting copper and other nonferrous metals and 
indicated that facilities melting 6,000 tpy or more of copper and other 
nonferrous metals had PM emission controls. Although we requested data 
prior to proposal on the amount of copper and other nonferrous metal 
containing the specific foundry HAP subject to this rule, we did not 
receive information to determine a HAP-based threshold. In addition, 
the analysis of whether to apply PM controls to facilities melting less 
than 6,000 tpy was based on the costs and cost effectiveness of 
applying PM emission controls to foundries melting copper and other 
nonferrous metals, resulting in the conclusion that it was not cost 
effective to apply emission controls on those melting less than 6,000 
tpy of copper and other nonferrous metal. As documented in the proposal 
(see 74 FR 6518), the cost effectiveness for applying a baghouse to the 
melting operations at a small copper or other nonferrous foundry was 
estimated to be $50,000 per ton of PM and $1 million per ton of metal 
HAP. Therefore, we have clarified in the rule that the 6,000 tpy 
threshold is based on the total amount of copper and other nonferrous 
metal melted, excluding the amount of aluminum and ferrous metals 
melted at the facility. In addition, we have added definitions for 
``annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt production'' and 
``annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt capacity'' to be used 
to determine if an affected source is subject to the control 
requirements. Therefore, if an existing or new affected source melts 
6,000 tpy or more of copper and other nonferrous metal, it must comply 
with the controls for PM/metal HAP.
    Comment: Four commenters asked that EPA specify in the rule how the 
6,000 tpy threshold is applied under fluctuating production levels over 
time. One commenter suggested that the approach used in the iron and 
steel foundry area source rule be incorporated to address questions of 
changing production levels and noted that those procedures addressed 
both cases in which a foundry is initially below the threshold and 
subsequently exceeds it and also the case where a foundry subsequently 
produces at levels below the threshold.
    Response: In the final rule, EPA has incorporated definitions for 
``large foundry'' and ``small foundry.'' These definitions are 
consistent with the subcategorization scheme set forth in the proposed 
rule, which used a 6,000 tpy metal melting production rate to define 
facility size. We have defined a ``small foundry'' as an existing 
copper or other nonferrous foundry with an annual copper and other 
nonferrous metal melt production of less than 6,000

[[Page 30377]]

tpy (or a new copper or other nonferrous foundry with an annual copper 
and other nonferrous metal melt capacity of less than 6,000 tpy). We 
have defined a ``large foundry'' as a copper or other nonferrous 
foundry with an annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt 
production of 6,000 tpy or more (or a new copper or other nonferrous 
foundry with an annual copper and other nonferrous metal melt capacity 
of 6,000 tpy or more). The proposal did not discuss fluctuating 
production levels with regard to the 6,000 tpy threshold for 
determining which copper and other nonferrous foundries must comply 
with the PM emission limit. EPA has reviewed the Iron and Steel Foundry 
Area Source rule (40 CFR 63, subpart ZZZZZ). We have incorporated into 
this final rule some of the features of the Iron and Steel Area Source 
rule. For example, some of the concepts we applied from that rule 
include establishing a baseline calendar year for determining annual 
metal melt production, using capacity at startup for new affected 
sources, requiring a notification if a small foundry becomes a large 
foundry, and allowing 2 years to comply if a small foundry becomes a 
large foundry. Therefore, we revised this rule to provide that if the 
annual metal melt production of your existing small foundry equals or 
exceeds 6,000 tons of copper and other nonferrous metal during a 
calendar year subsequent to 2010, you must submit a notification of 
foundry reclassification to the Administrator within 30 days and comply 
with the requirements for existing large foundries within 2 years of 
the date of the notification.
    However, in this rule, you must continue to comply with the 
requirements for large copper and other nonferrous foundries in the 
case of a production decrease below 6000 tpy after 2010. Because you 
would have already installed the emission control device, EPA believes 
it is reasonable to require continued operation of that device. EPA 
further believes it would not be reasonable to allow you to turn the 
control device off and not comply with the PM emission limit. Our 
intent at proposal was that if a large copper or other nonferrous 
foundry subsequently decreases annual copper and other nonferrous metal 
melt production below 6,000 tpy, it should remain subject to the 
requirements for large copper and other nonferrous foundries. We 
revised the rule to state that if your facility is, at any time, 
classified as a large foundry, you must continue to comply with the PM 
control requirements even if your annual copper and other nonferrous 
metal melt production falls below 6,000 tons in subsequent calendar 
years.
    Comment: According to one commenter, the proposed rule language is 
not clear regarding whether the PM control requirements apply to 
aluminum foundries. The commenter would like EPA to clarify that 
aluminum foundries are subject only to management practices and not the 
add-on emission control requirements.
    Response: EPA has revised the rule language to make it clear that 
only large copper and other nonferrous foundries (excluding aluminum) 
are subject to the PM control requirements. The rule's definition for 
large foundry includes only copper and other nonferrous foundries. 
Furthermore, we have inserted new definitions for the ``annual copper 
and other nonferrous metal melt production'' and ``annual copper and 
other nonferrous metal melt capacity'' to further clarify that the 
6,000 tpy threshold applies only to copper and other nonferrous metal 
melt production. Therefore, the commenter is correct that the PM 
controls required in the rule are not applicable to aluminum foundries.
3. Material Containing HAP
    Comment: One commenter stated that the language at section 
63.11544(a)(1) should be clarified to set an unambiguous threshold for 
materials containing aluminum, copper or nonferrous HAP below which the 
rule does not apply. The commenter notes that section 63.11544(a)(1) 
limits applicability of the rule to foundries using material containing 
aluminum, copper or nonferrous foundry HAP, but it expands 
applicability to include foundries that use materials that have the 
``potential to emit'' copper foundry HAP. The commenter claims that 
this language is contradictory and appears to set a de minimis 
applicability threshold based on the definition of material containing 
foundry HAP, then takes away the threshold with the catch-all 
``potential to emit'' language. The commenter asked that the language 
be revised to clarify that the rule does not apply to foundries using 
feedstock that does not meet the definition of materials that contain 
aluminum, copper, or nonferrous foundry HAP. Several other commenters 
provided similar comments on the term ``potential to emit.''
    One commenter requested that the definition of ``material 
containing aluminum foundry HAP'' be included in the ``affected 
source'' definition. The commenter stated that in reviewing the 
interrelationship of these proposed definitions, the proposed language 
defining ``affected source'' does not clearly limit applicability based 
solely on materials content. The commenter said that the linkage 
between the ``affected source'' definition and the definition of 
``material containing aluminum foundry HAP'' is not clearly established 
and the use of the term ``or have the potential to emit'' seems to 
establish an independent applicability test that could apply even if 
the materials content is less than the levels set forth for ``material 
containing aluminum foundry HAP.'' To clarify applicability, the 
commenter recommended that the applicability in proposed section 
63.11544, and its definition of affected source be revised to 
specifically use the defined term ``material containing aluminum 
foundry HAP,'' and either: (1) eliminate the reference to ``potential 
to emit'' or (2) use the conjunctive, rather than the ``disjunctive'' 
preposition in the definition (i.e., both requirements would need to be 
satisfied).
    Another commenter interpreted the proposal to mean that aluminum 
foundry operations would not be covered under the proposed rules, 
including the management practices provisions, if they do not use a 
HAP-containing material for aluminum foundries as defined in the 
proposed rule. The commenter interprets this to mean that the use of 
aluminum foundry metal below the defined weight percentage HAP content 
is not subject to the rule.
    Response: We agree that the term ``potential to emit'' used in this 
context is ambiguous and unnecessary, and we have deleted it in the 
final rule. Our intent was that the rule be applicable to foundries 
that melt materials containing the aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry 
HAP, and other nonferrous foundry HAP. We have also revised the 
applicability section in the final rule to state that the requirements 
apply to the collection of foundry melting operations that melt 
materials containing aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP, and 
other nonferrous foundry HAP (see the definitions of these terms 
provided in the rule). As an example, if an aluminum foundry melted 
greater than 600 tpy of aluminum, and that aluminum contained less than 
0.1 percent by weight of beryllium, cadmium, lead or nickel 
(individually) and contained less than 1.0 percent by weight manganese, 
then that foundry would not be subject to the rule.
4. Facilities That Are Not Foundries
    Comment: One commenter stated that his facility processes aluminum 
scrap and/or dross to produce aluminum that

[[Page 30378]]

is used as the raw material in other operations. The commenter's 
facilities produce molten aluminum, aluminum sow and/or aluminum ingot. 
The commenter stated that facilities that produce sow and/or ingot by 
pouring molten aluminum from furnaces, holders or meters into molds are 
not and should not be subject to the proposed rule because they are not 
``aluminum foundries.'' The commenter noted that the sows and ingots 
produced by these facilities are not complex shapes nor are they used 
in processes that require specific mechanical properties, 
machinability, and/or corrosion resistance. According to the commenter, 
the sows and ingots are used in processes as the raw aluminum metal 
that is melted and then cast into complex shapes for use in processes 
requiring the listed properties, and the company does not produce 
aluminum castings.
    Response: The facility described by the commenter that melts scrap 
metal and cast molten metal to produce sows, ingots, or billets is a 
secondary aluminum production facility and is not an aluminum foundry 
as defined by this rule. We have clarified in the final rule's 
definitions that a foundry casts complex shapes rather than sow and 
ingot (see, for example, definition for ``aluminum foundry'' in section 
63.11556), and we have stated explicitly in the definitions for 
aluminum foundry, copper foundry and other nonferrous foundry that the 
definitions do not include secondary metal production.
    Comment: Another commenter stated that as currently written, 
questions of applicability will arise as to how the rules apply to area 
sources that may include both types of operations (aluminum foundry 
casting and secondary aluminum production). According to the commenter, 
most secondary aluminum production facilities conduct ``casting'' 
operations directly after the melting of aluminum scrap and notes that 
the proposal's preamble provides some explanatory language by 
describing production operations for aluminum and other nonferrous 
foundry casting operations as those that ``produce complex metal shapes 
by melting the metal in a furnace and pouring the molten metal into a 
mold to solidify into the desired shape.'' The commenter said that this 
contrasts only slightly with ``casting'' for other secondary aluminum 
production facilities where the metal is formed or molded into simple 
shapes, such as ingots, sows or billets for shipping or further 
processing.
    The commenter said the proposal does not address the nuances of 
these different casting operations and therefore does not provide the 
regulated community with sufficient notice regarding the rule's 
applicability and what is needed to comply with the rule, and in 
addition, the rule is subject to misinterpretation by permit 
authorities. To address these issues, the commenter asked that the rule 
be revised to make clear which MACT rule (40 CFR part 63 CFR subpart 
RRR or subpart ZZZZZZ) takes precedence for particular operations where 
interpretations of applicability may conflict. The commenter said that 
given the confusion witnessed frequently with permit authorities 
addressing implementation and compliance for the secondary aluminum 
production MACT rules, this necessity is even more pronounced. The 
commenter requested that the rule be revised and that EPA provide an 
appropriate definition for the term ``aluminum castings'' and also use 
the term ``aluminum castings'' in the definition for ``melting 
operations'' in section 63.11556.
    Response: The facilities that cast molten metal to produce sows, 
ingots, or billets are secondary metal producers and are not foundries 
covered by this rule (see definition of aluminum foundry in section 
63.11556). Secondary metal producers do not produce complex castings 
that are final or near final products, but instead produce a metal 
product that is a simple shape that is shipped to other facilities 
(including foundries) where it is re-melted and transformed into final 
product. We have revised the definitions in the final rule to make a 
clearer distinction between secondary metal production (such as 
secondary aluminum facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRR) and aluminum foundries. We do not believe there is any 
conflict or overlap with subpart RRR because that rule does not 
regulate metal HAP emissions from aluminum foundries as this rule does. 
It is possible for an aluminum foundry to be subject to both rules, but 
there would be no overlap in the requirements because the two rules 
apply to different HAP.
    Comment: One commenter asked that EPA clarify that 40 CFR part 63 
subpart RRR sources are not included in this NESHAP. The commenter 
stated that there may be confusion because, in subpart RRR (the NESHAP 
for secondary aluminum production facilities), EPA included certain 
area sources in that major source rule. According to the commenter, in 
the secondary aluminum production rule, EPA determined that furnaces, 
including area sources, melting clean charge, internal scrap, runaround 
scrap, or customer returns are not subject to the requirements of 
Subpart RRR because the use of clean charge materials results in 
sufficiently low emissions. Therefore, the commenter requested that 
furnaces melting clean charge, internal scrap, runaround scrap or other 
customer returns that are area sources subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart RRR (but excluded from the requirements) also be excluded from 
applicability of this rule because EPA has already considered the 
emissions from these furnaces in subpart RRR.
    Another commenter seeks clarification on aluminum foundry source 
category applicability relative to the secondary aluminum MACT 
standards. The commenter stated the language in the proposal preamble 
addressing the source category change from secondary aluminum 
production to aluminum foundries is confusing and appears to be subject 
to potentially conflicting interpretations. According to the commenter, 
the language can be interpreted to mean that the secondary aluminum 
production source category, for which there are existing MACT standards 
under 40 CFR part 63 subpart RRR, has been changed. The commenter said 
this distinction is of particular importance since the secondary 
aluminum production MACT standards also apply in part to area sources.
    Response: This rule, subpart ZZZZZZ, does not apply to secondary 
aluminum production facilities, including those secondary aluminum 
production facilities that are area sources. Furthermore, EPA did not 
intend any overlap or conflict between 40 CFR part 63 subpart RRR and 
this rule. Certain types of area source aluminum foundries are subject 
to a dioxin emission limit under subpart RRR, but subpart RRR has no 
metal HAP or PM emission limits that would apply to these area sources. 
Consequently, there are no aluminum foundries that can be addressed 
solely by subpart RRR, and this foundry area source rule (40 CFR part 
63 subpart ZZZZZZ) is necessary to regulate the metal HAP emissions 
from aluminum foundries.
    The change in the source category name in this rule does not change 
the source category name for secondary aluminum plants subject to 
subpart RRR. The effect of the change in name is to list aluminum 
foundries as an area source category for which standards must be 
developed, and to remove secondary aluminum facilities as a source 
category for which standards must be developed. We explained in the 
proposal preamble, 74 FR 6511, that we incorrectly named the 
``Secondary

[[Page 30379]]

Aluminum Production'' category in the area source category listing 
notice, and the emissions used in the listing were from aluminum 
foundries (see also the EPA memorandum cited in the proposal preamble, 
dated November 26, 2002, which explains this error at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0236, Item 0011).
    Comment: One commenter stated his plant produces beryllium-copper 
alloys, copper alloys that do not contain beryllium, and beryllium 
alloys that do not contain copper. The commenter noted that his plant 
is subject to the NESHAP ambient air quality standard for beryllium, 
which is set forth in 40 CFR part 61.32(b). The commenter requested 
that EPA clarify that the proposed rule for copper and other nonferrous 
foundries does not apply to his facility because it is already subject 
to part 61 due to emissions of beryllium. The commenter requested that 
EPA expressly state in the preamble to the final rule that facilities 
currently subject to part 61 are not covered by the proposed copper and 
other nonferrous foundry rule. To make this clear in the rule itself, 
the commenter suggested that EPA exempt any foundries located at a 
facility that produces beryllium and/or beryllium alloys and is covered 
by 40 CFR part 61.32 through 61.34 which coverage, of course, mandates 
title V permitting for that facility.
    Another commenter asked for clarification on whether their facility 
would be classified as a ``foundry'' and subject to the rule since the 
facility melts copper scrap in a gas-fired melting furnace and is a 
metal powder producer with main product lines consisting of copper, 
bronze and tin powders.
    Response: The information supplied by the commenters indicates that 
these facilities may be secondary metal production facilities that do 
not cast the molten metal into complex shapes that are final products. 
As discussed in response to an earlier comment, we have clarified the 
distinction between foundries and secondary metal producers. We cannot 
state in the preamble and rule that these facilities are not subject to 
the rule, and any questions related to applicability should be 
discussed with the permitting authority (i.e., the State agency if 
delegated or the EPA regional office if not delegated). In response to 
the comment about already being subject to a part 61 standard, we 
confirm that it is possible for an area source to be subject to both a 
part 61 standard and an area source standard.
    Comment: One commenter asked how ``nonferrous'' is defined or 
interpreted by EPA and whether it is reasonable to infer that 
``nonferrous'' excludes any iron-containing metal (e.g., nickel alloy 
containing 10 percent iron would be considered ferrous). Another 
commenter stated that because many foundries that pour nonferrous 
metals also pour ferrous metal alloys in the same building, it should 
be emphasized that this rule is not intended to apply to ferrous alloys 
and suggested that the word ``nonferrous'' should be added before the 
word ``material'' in the definition of ``material containing copper 
foundry HAP.''
    Response: The types of facilities described by the commenters are 
nonferrous foundries if they melt any nonferrous metals (other than 
copper or aluminum or copper based alloys) unless their melting 
operations have been identified as a ferrous melting operation that is 
subject to the area source standard for iron and steel foundries (40 
CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ). The other nonferrous foundry (i.e., other 
than copper and aluminum foundries) source category is comprised of 
facilities identified under NAICS 331528, Other Nonferrous Foundries 
(except Die-Casting): ``This U.S. industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in pouring molten nonferrous metals (except aluminum 
and copper) into molds to manufacture nonferrous castings (except 
aluminum die-castings, nonferrous (except aluminum) die-castings, 
aluminum castings, and copper castings). Establishments in this 
industry purchase nonferrous metals, such as nickel, lead, and zinc, 
made in other establishments.'' Examples are foundries (excluding die 
casting) melting zinc and zinc-base alloys, nickel and nickel-base 
alloys (including ferrous metal), magnesium and magnesium-base alloys. 
However, we have not defined the different types of foundries by NAICS 
because a facility could have multiple types of foundries and NAICS. We 
specifically define aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundry in 
the rule, and a nonferrous foundry could be co-located with an iron and 
steel foundry.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed definition of 
``copper foundry'' should be revised to exclude primary copper 
smelters, refineries and stand-alone rod mills. The commenter stated 
that EPA should make clear that the definition does not include the 
melting of copper (scrap copper, anode copper or cathode copper) at 
primary copper smelters and refineries, and pouring into casting 
machines to produce anode copper, copper rod and cake.
    Response: EPA has revised the definition of copper foundry, stating 
that ``this definition does not include primary or secondary metal 
producers that cast molten copper to produce simple shapes such as 
sows, ingots, billets, bars, anode copper, rods or copper cake.''

D. Management Practices

1. Purchased Scrap Requirements
    Comment: One commenter stated that the rule provides that aluminum, 
copper, and other nonferrous foundry area sources that are subject to 
the rule shall ``purchase only metal scrap that has been depleted (to 
the extent practicable) of aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP, or 
other nonferrous foundry HAP (as applicable) in the materials charged 
to the melting furnace.'' Because foundries also charge ingots, sow, 
alloys and other ``clean charge'' materials into the melting furnace, 
the commenter said that EPA should clarify that this provision also 
includes these materials. According to the commenter, in purchasing 
these materials, a foundry may have content specification for its 
casting application and product that should be sufficient to meet the 
``deplete'' criterion of this management practice, and other references 
to ``metal scrap'' should be broadened to include these ``compliant'' 
clean charge materials.
    Another commenter quoted the proposed rule as stating that 
foundries are to ``purchase only metal scrap that has been depleted (to 
the extent practicable) of * * * HAP.'' Because the specifications of 
many nonferrous alloys contain metallic HAP, the commenter recommends 
the rule be changed to state ``excluding metallic HAP that are required 
to be added for the production of alloyed castings.''
    One commenter recommended the HAP content requirement for melting 
metal scrap be deleted or substantially modified to avoid a domestic 
prohibition against recycling valuable metal scrap. The commenter 
stated that the proposal requires that covered foundries purchase 
``only metal scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable)'' 
of the identified HAP, but said that this purchase requirement is vague 
and the word ``deplete'' is not defined. The commenter said that it is 
important for EPA to make this clarification to avoid the risk that the 
depletion requirement will be spuriously interpreted as prohibiting the 
remelting of scrap that contains HAP in excess of low levels or even 
trace amounts because it would mean that some metal scrap could only be 
buried

[[Page 30380]]

or exported for remelting outside the U.S. The commenter noted that the 
proposal recognizes the importance of recycling by providing that the 
management practice requires the use of scrap depleted of HAP metals 
except where the scrap is purchased specifically for its HAP metal 
content for use in alloying. The commenter asked that this provision be 
broadened by changing the phrase ``for use in alloying'' to ``for use 
in the production of metal or alloys.'' According to the commenter, 
this change is appropriate and needed because metal HAP in scrap can be 
valuable in the production of a metal as well as of an alloy.
    One commenter recommended that EPA amend definitions in the 
proposed rule to align the applicability with subpart RRR. The 
commenter stated that the preamble to the rule indicates that GACT is 
considered the use of ``clean charge'' but, rather than defining that 
term, EPA requires that affected sources purchase or use only metal 
scrap that has been ``depleted of HAP metals (to the extent 
practicable) charged to the melting furnace.'' According to the 
commenter, EPA does not clearly define clean charge or explain what it 
means to deplete material of HAP metals ``to the extent practicable.'' 
The commenter is concerned that the definition of ``depleting to the 
extent practicable'' could change over time, leading to the proposed 
standard becoming a moving target for sources. Moreover, the commenter 
is concerned that internal scrap, which is permissible to use under 
subpart RRR, continue to be usable without any additional conditions 
under this proposed rule. To that end, the commenter requests that EPA 
revise the definition of ``material containing aluminum foundry HAP'' 
to clarify that clean charge, internal scrap, runaround scrap, and 
customer returns do not fall within that definition.
    The commenter recommended adding this sentence to the definition: 
``For purposes of this subpart the following materials are not material 
containing aluminum foundry HAP--clean charge, internal scrap, 
runaround scrap, or customer returns, as defined in Sec.  (section) 
63.1503.'' The commenter said another way of addressing this concern 
would be to clarify in section 63.11550 that use of clean charge, 
internal scrap, runaround scrap, or customer returns as defined in 
section 63.1503 of subpart RRR, constitutes compliance with the 
requirements of this rule by adding this sentence: ``Purchase or use of 
clean charge, internal scrap, runaround scrap, or customer returns, as 
defined in Sec.  63.1503 constitutes compliance with the requirement of 
this subparagraph to deplete a material of aluminum foundry HAP.''
    Response: Our intent was that purchased metal scrap be depleted to 
the extent practicable of HAP contaminants, except when the HAP metal 
is an important specified component in the final casting. We did not 
intend for this provision to apply to ingots, sows, and alloys (they 
are not metal scrap), nor did we intend it to apply to internal scrap, 
runaround scrap, and customer returns (they are not purchased). We have 
clarified the final rule by stating that the provisions relating to the 
purchase of only metal scrap do not apply to ``material that is not 
scrap (e.g., ingots, alloys, sows) or to materials that are not 
purchased (e.g., internal scrap, customer returns)''.
    We acknowledged at proposal that certain types of scrap metal 
containing HAP were necessarily purchased to meet alloy specifications. 
We have clarified the management practices in the final rule that 
purchased metal scrap must be depleted to the extent practicable of HAP 
metals except when the HAP metal is needed to meet specifications for 
the casting. We have also added a recordkeeping requirement for 
documentation that the HAP metal is in the specifications for the cast 
metal product.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA eliminate records for 
``use'' and focus solely on ``purchase.'' The commenter said the 
proposed rule requires facilities to purchase only metal scrap that has 
been depleted to the extent practicable of the relevant HAP. However, 
the commenter notes that the recordkeeping and labeling requirements in 
the proposed rule refer to ``purchase and use'' of such scrap. The 
commenter is concerned that the insertion of the word ``use'' might be 
misread to require tracking of use after metal enters the facility even 
though he understands that not to be EPA's intent. The commenter said 
that EPA has appropriately determined that this aspect of the standard 
should apply at the point of purchase (i.e., entry to the facility) as 
the most effective way of assessing compliance and, after that point, 
the ``usage'' is not relevant to compliance. The commenter recommends 
that EPA delete the word ``use,'' or if that word is to remain, change 
the phrasing to ``purchase for use.''
    Response: We revised the reporting requirements to be consistent 
with the management practice provision, which stated ``purchase only 
metal scrap * * *,'' by deleting the words ``and use'' in the reporting 
requirements as suggested by the commenter.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the alloy 
exception for purchased scrap in section 63.11550(a)(2) also applies to 
nickel or other HAP.
    Response: The exception for ``metal scrap that is purchased 
specifically for its HAP metal content for use in alloying'' (alloy 
exception) applies to any aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP and 
other nonferrous foundry HAP.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the rule has a potentially 
adverse effect upon the beneficial reuse of metal scrap and asked that 
EPA consider not imposing the scrap purchase requirement upon those 
furnaces which are subject to the PM emission and control efficiency 
requirements. According to the commenter, these highly-controlled and 
closely-monitored furnaces are where EPA should most strongly encourage 
the melting of metal scrap and that EPA can encourage this practice by 
exempting these furnaces from the scrap purchase requirement and their 
attendant burdens. The commenter said that EPA can appropriately do so 
because these furnaces are the ones that are subject to the additional 
emission and control efficiency requirements, which make the scrap 
purchase requirement redundant and therefore unnecessary.
    Response: Our analysis indicated that the management practices in 
the proposed rule represent GACT for all furnaces, even for those 
melting furnaces equipped with efficient emission controls. We expect 
careful attention to purchasing scrap metal, which has been depleted to 
the extent practicable of HAP metals that are not needed in the final 
casting, and use of covers during melting will reduce emissions at all 
melting operations. Consequently, we are requiring the use of 
management practices, including the limitations on scrap metal, at all 
of the affected sources, even if the furnaces are equipped with control 
devices for PM and metal HAP.
2. Covers
    Comment: One commenter recommended the following revision to the 
requirement to use covers:

    Cover or enclose each melting furnace that is equipped with a 
cover or enclosure during the melting operation to the extent 
practicable (e.g., except for standard foundry operating practices 
such as when access is needed for charging, alloy addition, tapping, 
ladling, fluxing, slagging/drossing, temperature measurement, 
observation).


[[Page 30381]]


    The commenter also asked that EPA make clear that this 
parenthetical list of practices is illustrative, and is not meant to be 
exclusive or limiting in any way. The commenter suggested it would be 
helpful to have an additional example to address the situation in which 
a cover-closing mechanism fails and the cover must remain open, or 
partially open, until maintenance can be performed within a reasonable 
period. As an example, the commenter said one copper foundry reported 
that it would be impractical to cover and uncover a melting furnace 
continually for its permanent mold operations that ladles the metal 
into molds as many as 35 times in an hour.
    One commenter stated that the rule should be revised to clarify 
requirements during periods that cover-closing mechanisms fail. The 
commenter said that occasionally the closing mechanism on a cover will 
jam, requiring maintenance to correct the problem, and these periods 
should be included as times during which it is not practicable to close 
the cover.
    Another commenter suggested adding to the rule other examples of 
opening a cover on the melting furnace and to state that other examples 
include, but may not be limited to, ramming, scraping, fluxing, 
slagging, sampling, and temperature taking.
    Response: The commenter correctly quoted the proposed rule, but we 
believe the commenter misreads the management practices requirements 
and that the term ``to the extent practicable'' addresses the concerns 
raised by the commenters. We cannot include every possibility in the 
rule of when it might be necessary to not use the cover. However, we 
have added the phrase ``including but not limited to'' to the examples 
in the rule to indicate that the list is not all inclusive.
3. Other Management Practices
    Comment: One commenter said that foundries subject to the proposed 
regulation are required to prepare and operate pursuant to a written 
management practices plan and that the plan must include the management 
practices required by the rule, as well as ``any other management 
practices that are implemented at the facility to minimize emissions 
from melting furnaces.'' The commenter stated that foundries that 
implement additional management practices to minimize emissions from 
melting furnaces should not have additional regulatory requirements 
imposed on them through the written management plan because a foundry 
that implements an additional management practice that results in 
reduced emissions from the melting furnace could be penalized if the 
practice is not included in the written management practices plan. The 
commenter believes such a result is unreasonable, and instead EPA 
should change the regulatory language to state that a facility may 
include additional management practices that minimize emissions from 
melting furnaces in the written management practices plan.
    Response: We proposed to require the use of two management 
practices. We are finalizing those management practices in this rule, 
and they must be in the management practices plan. Although owners and 
operators can include additional requirements in their management 
practices plan, they are not required to do so by this rule. If, 
however, additional management practices are included in the plan, the 
owner or operator could be held responsible for them to the extent they 
are not followed. See section 11550(a)(3) in the final rule.

E. Definitions

    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA add a definition of 
``deviation'' for purposes of this rule so it is clear to sources when 
they need to report. Because this is an area source rule, the commenter 
believes that sources may not be subject to part 70 and, in any event, 
may not be familiar with deviation reporting, and that EPA should 
explain that a deviation occurs if the facility fails to meet 
applicable standards.
    Response: We agree that a definition of ``deviation'' is needed, 
and we have added the definition that has been used in other NESHAP, 
such as the area source standard for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR 
63, subpart ZZZZZ).
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA should clearly define in 
the rule that the affected source is a ``melting operation.'' The 
commenters stated that the affected source is defined in the preamble 
as ``* * * foundry melting operations (including all the various types 
of melting furnaces at the affected foundry) * * *'' However, the 
commenters said that the affected source does not appear to be defined 
within the rule.
    Response: We agree that the rule language should specify what the 
affected source is, and we have stated directly in the final rule that 
the affected source is the collection of all melting operations at the 
facility.
    Comment: One commenter asked to see clearer distinctions in the 
rule between the requirements for ``large'' foundries (above 6,000 
tpy), ``small'' foundries (less than 6,000 tpy, but above 600 tpy 
actual), and ``exempt'' foundries (below 600 tpy actual).
    Response: We have clarified the final rule, as the commenter 
suggested, and inserted definitions for ``large'' and ``small'' 
foundries that are subject to different requirements. It is important 
to recognize, however, that foundries with an annual metal melt 
production less than 600 tpy in calendar year 2010 are not exempted 
from the rule, but rather these foundries are not included in the 
source category, as discussed above in Section VI.B., and, therefore, 
not subject to the management practices, recordkeeping and other 
requirements of this final rule. In addition, it is also important to 
note that these rule requirements will not apply to these foundries so 
long as their production after calendar year 2010 remains below 600 
tpy.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA add a definition of ``die 
casting'' to the rule to help clarify what operations are not 
applicable to the rule and asked that EPA also clarify the 
applicability of permanent mold casting, including ``low pressure 
permanent mold casting'' and ``vacuum permanent mold casting'' 
operations.
    Another commenter asked for clarification of applicability when 
melting furnaces for die casting operations, which are not part of the 
source category, are co-located with aluminum, copper or other 
nonferrous foundry melting furnaces that are included in the source 
category. This commenter also requested a definition of ``die 
casting.'' The commenter also stated that it would be helpful for EPA 
to define ``aluminum die casting operations,'' and, for clarity, to 
make a conforming change to its definition of ``aluminum foundry'' 
using this defined term. The commenter suggested a modified version of 
the NAICS definition: ``aluminum die casting operations mean operations 
included under the Standard Industrial Classification code 3363 and 
NAICS 331521. For purposes of this subpart, aluminum die casting 
operations includes low-pressure injection and high-pressure injection 
die casting process methods'' and ``aluminum foundry means a ``facility 
that melts aluminum and pours molten aluminum into molds to manufacture 
aluminum castings (except aluminum die casting operations).''
    Response: We agree that ``die casting'' should be defined and have 
done so in the final rule using the NAICS definition, which 
specifically states ``under high pressure'' and does not include 
``under low pressure,'' as suggested by the commenter. With

[[Page 30382]]

regard to co-located operations, if melting operations for die casting 
and other types of casting are co-located, melting operations dedicated 
to die casting are not subject to this rule. However, melting 
operations that serve both types of casting operations are subject to 
the rule.
    In response to the clarification on permanent mold casting, the 
rule applies to facilities using permanent mold casting because it is 
not die casting.

F. Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping

    Comment: Two commenters noted that records must identify the date 
and time of each melting operation; however, many foundries do not 
record this level of detail and are not configured to record this level 
of detail. In addition, the commenter said the benefit of such 
recordkeeping detail is not apparent and requested that EPA remove the 
requirement for recording the time of each melt event.
    Two commenters requested that the reporting and recordkeeping be 
simplified and not required on a per melt basis. The commenter stated 
that his facility is subject to title V permitting requirements, and 
that the proposal's monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are based on EPA's expectation that the furnaces being 
regulated would not be subject to title V permit requirements. The 
commenter believes that overlaying the proposal's requirements on his 
plant would produce a complexity and added costs without any added 
benefits and stated that this is why EPA has proposed to exempt these 
foundries from title V permitting.
    Another commenter claimed that demonstrating compliance with this 
management practice can also be unnecessarily burdensome because the 
rule states that a foundry ``must keep records to document conformance 
with the management practice plan'' and that the records ``must 
identify each melting furnace equipped with a cover or enclosure, the 
date and time of each melting operation, and that the procedures in the 
management practices plan were followed for each melting operation.'' 
According to the commenter, this recordkeeping requirement is too 
onerous for area source foundries, so much so that some foundries could 
be forced to have one full-time employee dedicated to this single 
regulatory requirement.
    As proposed, the commenter said this requirement would be a serious 
disincentive for foundries to have covers or enclosures on their 
melting furnaces, because melting furnaces that are not equipped with 
covers and enclosures are in compliance with this management practice 
and have no recordkeeping requirements at all. The commenter continued 
by saying that such a result is counterproductive, and regulations 
should provide foundries with incentives to install covers and 
enclosures rather than adding regulatory burdens to those that already 
have them installed. The commenter recommended that EPA streamline the 
recordkeeping requirement for covers and enclosures to state that the 
facility shall demonstrate that it follows the standard foundry 
operating practices for covers and enclosures that are included in its 
written management practices plan.
    If EPA adopts the proposed approach discussed above, two commenters 
asked that EPA clarify that records of each time the furnace is opened 
and charged are not required because the proposed rule is ambiguous on 
this point. An alternative approach suggested by the commenter would be 
to require monthly inspections to verify that the covers are closed at 
the appropriate times during the melting operations. According to the 
commenter, given that sources already have a strong incentive to close 
covers on furnaces during operations due to OSHA and energy 
conservation concerns, a periodic check of operations is certainly 
sufficient to provide an assurance of compliance.
    One commenter was concerned that sources will be required to record 
and report deviations from the recordkeeping requirements even though 
the covers were likely closed. According to the commenter, even with 
EPA's suggestion that checklists can be used, at a facility that does 
not have an extensive staff, an operator may fail to ``check the box'' 
even though the operator is following the good management practice of 
closing the cover that the facility has always used. The commenter said 
that these types of deviations may make a facility appear as though it 
is violating the standard even though it is substantively compliant. 
The commenter stated that a monthly inspection approach, on the other 
hand, will avoid this paperwork issue while still ensuring that 
facilities routinely comply with the rule. The commenter provided 
specific recommendations for revising the proposed rule language to 
address their recordkeeping concerns.
    Response: After considering the numerous comments on the burden of 
the proposed recordkeeping requirements, we agree that the requirements 
can be streamlined and still be effective. Based on the comments 
provided, EPA agrees that the burden to record the time of each melting 
operation and document that the management practices for covers were 
followed for each melting operation may require significant additional 
labor to implement. We have revised the rule to require that the owner 
or operator inform their appropriate operating personnel of the 
applicable management practices, perform monthly inspections to ensure 
that they are being followed, and maintain records documenting 
conformance with the management practices plan. The rule no longer 
requires records for the time of each melting operation and 
documentation that covers were used during each melt.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA consider a notification 
for copper and other nonferrous foundries to determine their production 
level above or below the 6,000 tpy threshold because such a 
notification would help to clarify which foundries are subject to the 
applicable emissions limits and monitoring requirements.
    Response: We have revised the rule to require sources to indicate 
whether they are a small or a large foundry in the Notification of 
Compliance report.
    Comment: One commenter said that EPA appears to be requiring all 
new sources equipped with a fabric filter to install, operate, and 
maintain a bag leak detection system, but that does not appear to be 
consistent with rule development documents contained within the docket. 
The commenter asked that EPA clarify that only new affected sources at 
copper foundries or other nonferrous foundries that melt 6,000 tpy or 
greater of metal would be required to operate bag leak detection 
systems.
    Response: We have made a minor revision to the rule to further 
clarify that only new affected sources at a large foundry, defined as a 
copper or other nonferrous foundry with an annual copper and other 
nonferrous metal melt capacity of 6,000 tpy or greater, would be 
required to install and operate bag leak detection systems. Owners or 
operators of existing affected sources are not required to install a 
bag leak detection system, although they could choose to install one as 
a method of monitoring in lieu of visual emission observations.
    Comment: Two commenters requested clarification on the proposed 
regulatory language that the monitoring requirements in section 
63.11552 are applicable only to copper and other nonferrous foundries 
subject to the PM emissions limits and that have emissions controlled 
with a fabric filter. Other commenters said that the

[[Page 30383]]

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

[[Page 30384]]

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

G. Testing Requirements

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

[[Page 30385]]

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

H. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements

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

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

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

[[Page 30386]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 30387]]

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

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

[[Page 30388]]

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

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

[[Page 30389]]

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

[[Page 30390]]

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

I. Miscellaneous

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

[[Page 30391]]

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

VII. Impacts of the Final Standards

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

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2332.02.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are 
based on the information collection requirements in EPA's NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant 
to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 
emissions data submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection 
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This final NESHAP requires applicable one-time notifications 
according to the NESHAP General Provisions. Plant owners or operators 
are required to prepare and operate by written management practice 
plans and include compliance certifications for the management 
practices in their Notifications of Compliance Status. Foundries 
subject to the emission standards are required to conduct daily VE 
observations with a reduction to weekly VE observations if VE are not 
detected after 30 consecutive days of daily observations. Recordkeeping 
is required to demonstrate compliance with management practices, 
monitoring, and applicability provisions. The affected facilities are 
expected to already have the necessary control and monitoring equipment 
in place and to already conduct much of the required monitoring and 
recordkeeping activities. Foundries subject to the rule also are 
required to comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plans/reports and to submit a compliance report if a 
deviation occurred during the semiannual reporting period.
    The average annual burden for this information collection averaged 
over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 7,160 labor 
hours per year at a cost of approximately $408,855 for the 318 
facilities that would be subject to the final rule, or approximately 68 
hours per year per facility. No capital/startup costs or operation and 
maintenance costs are associated with the final rule information 
collection requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new 
area source foundries because none is projected for the next 3 years. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the final area source 
NESHAP on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business whose parent company meets the Small Business Administration 
size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 
500 for aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries); (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district, or special district with a population of less than 
50,000;

[[Page 30392]]

and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that 
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There will 
not be any significant impacts on new or existing aluminum, copper, or 
other nonferrous foundries because this final rule will not create any 
new requirements or burdens other than minimal compliance requirements. 
This final rule is estimated to impact 318 (of more than 962) area 
source facilities, 307 of which are small entities. The analysis shows 
that none of the small entities will incur economic impacts exceeding 1 
percent of its revenue. We have determined that small entity compliance 
costs are expected to be less than 0.05 percent of company sales 
revenue for all affected plants. Although this final rule will contain 
requirements for new area sources, EPA does not expect any new 
aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous foundries to be constructed in 
the foreseeable future; therefore, EPA did not estimate the impacts for 
new affected sources.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The 
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout 
the industry. The standards also require only the essential monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting needed to verify compliance. The final 
standards were developed based on information obtained from small 
businesses in our surveys, consultation with small business 
representatives, and consultation with industry representatives that 
are affiliated with small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to 
use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its 
manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the 
exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable 
alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990.
    EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 17. Although the Agency has identified 11 
VCS as being potentially applicable to these methods cited in this 
rule, we have decided not to use these standards in this rulemaking. 
The use of these VCS would have been impractical because

[[Page 30393]]

they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule. 
The search and review results are in the docket for this rule.
    Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the 
General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule and amendments.

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on June 25, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

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

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

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

Standards and Compliance Requirements

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63

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

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11544  Am I subject to this subpart?

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

[[Page 30394]]

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


Sec.  63.11545  What are my compliance dates?

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

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11550  What are my standards and management practices?

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


Sec.  63.11551  What are my initial compliance requirements?

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

[[Page 30395]]

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


Sec.  63.11552  What are my monitoring requirements?

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

[[Page 30396]]

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


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

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

[[Page 30397]]

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

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11555  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.11556  What definitions apply to this subpart?

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

[[Page 30398]]

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


Sec.  63.11557  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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

[[Page 30399]]

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


Sec.  63.11558  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart ZZZZZZ of Part 63

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

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

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P