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

The proposed rule included operating parameter limits that applied to PM control devices applied to emissions from a metal melting furnace. We eliminated the operating limit for baghouse pressure drop in response to comments because this operating parameter was determined not to be an appropriate indicator of performance. We have revised the other operating limits to apply to PM control devices at new affected sources instead of existing affected sources to minimize costs to existing sources associated with monitoring system retrofits. For a wet scrubber, a foundry must maintain the 3hour average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test. For an electrostatic precipitator, a foundry must maintain the voltage and secondary current (or total power input) to the control device at or above the level established during the initial or subsequent performance test. The final rule does not include an operating limit for baghouses at existing or new affected sources. The final NESHAP also includes a fugitive emissions opacity limit of 20 percent for each building or structure housing iron and steel foundry operations revised since proposal to allow one 6minute average per hour that does not exceed 30 percent. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive emissions opacity limit include all process equipment and practices used to produce metal castings for shipment including mold or core making and coating; scrap handling and preheating; metal melting and inoculation; pouring, cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding and other metal finishing operations; and sand handling.

2. Operation and Maintenance Requirements

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

3. Monitoring Requirements

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

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

Bag leak detection systems are required for positive or negative pressure baghouses at a new area source foundry. If a bag leak detection system is used, the owner or operator must prepare and operate pursuant to a monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system; specific requirements for the plan are included in this final rule. For additional information on bag leak detection systems that operate on the triboelectric effect, see ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA454/R98015, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication number PB98164676. This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of the capture system are also required. The owner or operator must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture [[Page 231]]
system as soon as practicable but no later than 90 days and record the results of each inspection and the date of any repair.

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

4. Performance Tests

We are requiring that each large foundry conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM or total metal HAP emissions limit and the opacity limit for fugitive emissions within 180 days of the applicable compliance date and submit the results in the notification of compliance status. In lieu of conducting an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP limit for metal melting furnaces, the owner or operator of an existing foundry is allowed to submit the results of a previous performance test provided the test was conducted within the last 5 years using the methods and procedures specified in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the test, or the test results reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit despite process changes. If the owner or operator does not have a previous performance test that meets the rule requirements, a test must be conducted within 180 days of the compliance date. Special provisions also are included for testing electric induction furnaces (EIFs) at existing foundries. Performance tests are required for all new area source foundries. Subsequent tests for furnaces are required every 5 years and each time an operating limit is changed or a process change occurs that is likely to increase metal HAP emissions from the furnace. Provisions are included in this final rule for determining compliance with PM or total metal HAP emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal charged format and for establishing control device operating parameter limits. This final rule also includes requirements to perform opacity testing by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A4) every 6 months. This final rule describes the methods and requirements for these semiannual opacity observations. In response to comments, we have revised the proposed rule to allow an alternative to the Method 9 test. The alternative allows the owner or operator to conduct semiannual VE observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A7). If visible fugitive emissions from foundry operations occur for more than 10 percent of the Method 22 observation period (i.e., more than a cumulative 6 minutes of the 1hour period), the owner or operator must conduct a Method 9 test of the fugitive emissions from foundry operations as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the Method 22 test to determine compliance with the opacity limit. 5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

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

We are also requiring all foundries to keep a record of the annual quantity and composition of each HAPcontaining chemical binder or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records must be copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other documentation that provide information on binder materials. The primary purpose of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and use nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible. 6. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements

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

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

A. Applicability and Compliance Dates

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

[[Page 232]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Requirements for Metallic Scrap

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

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

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

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

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

Response: We agree with the commenter that the provision exempting baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials from scrap management requirements is not needed in this rule [[Page 233]]

and have deleted the provision from the final rule.

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

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

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

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

2. Requirements for Mercury Switch Removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response: We determined at proposal that GACT for mercury emissions was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury switches from endoflife vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and shredded for use. GACT would be implemented by foundry owners purchasing scrap only from
[[Page 234]]
scrap providers that were participating in an EPAapproved program for switch removal, operating pursuant to an EPAapproved sitespecific plan (of equal effectiveness to an EPAapproved program) that ensured scrap providers had removed mercury switches, or by not melting scrap from endoflife vehicles. We determined that the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA approved program. However, we received two comments questioning how the effectiveness of an EPAapproved program would be ensured and suggestions for improving aspects of the rule related to program transparency, enforcement, and implementation. We have incorporated several of these suggested improvements into the final rule. The improvements include developing and maintaining a plan showing how the facility is participating in the approved program, documentation of communication to suppliers of the need to remove mercury switches and corroboration to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal procedures.

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

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

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

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

A key element of measuring the success of the program is maintaining a database of participants that has detailed contact information; documentation showing when the participant joined the program (or started submitting mercury switches); records of all submissions by the participant including date, number of mercury switches; and confirmation that the participant has submitted mercury switches as expected. Another important element is aggregated information to be updated on a quarterly basis, including progress reports, summaries of the number of program participants by State, individual program participants, and records of State and national totals for the number of switches and the amount of mercury removed. The program is also estimating the number of motor vehicles recycled. The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during the first year of the program, every 6 months in the second and third year of the program, and annually thereafter. The reports prepared by ELVS will include the total number of dismantlers or other potential participants identified; the total number of dismantlers or others contacted; and the total number of dismantlers or others participating. The annual report will include the total mercury (in pounds) and number of mercury switches recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury, number of mercury switches, and an estimated national capture rate, with information organized by State, compared with the expected range of mercury switch retirement rates for each State; and the total number and identity of dismantlers or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal [[Page 235]]
from the program. Mercury switch removal is already underwaymore than 1,855 pounds of mercury from more than 843,000 switches have been recovered to date by program participants. This represents almost 20 percent of our estimated reduction in mercury emissions of 5 tons per year once the final rule is implemented.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243 02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 5411512; fax number: (919) 5413207; email address: chin.conrad@epa.gov.