

[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 74087-74116]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de07-24]                         


[[Page 74087]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities; Final Rule


[[Page 74088]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-8509-5]
RIN 2060-AM71

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for electric arc 
furnace steelmaking facilities that are area sources of hazardous air 
pollutants. The final rule establishes requirements for the control of 
mercury emissions that are based on the maximum achievable control 
technology and requirements for the control of other hazardous air 
pollutants that are based on generally available control technology or 
management practices.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 28, 2007. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 
28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace 
Steelmaking Facilities Docket at the EPA Docket and Information Center 
in the EPA Headquarters Library, 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: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and 
Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5289; fax number (919) 541-
3207, e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information presented 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 the Final Rule
III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability and Compliance Date
    B. Final MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury
    C. Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD Vessels
    D. Final GACT Standards for Scrap Management
    E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Basis for Area Source Standards
    B. Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury
    C. Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury
    D. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap to Control HAP Other Than 
Mercury
    E. Miscellaneous Comments
V. Impacts of the Final Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          331111  Steel mills with
                                                  electric arc furnace
                                                  steelmaking facilities
                                                  that are area sources.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.10680 of subpart YYYYY (National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking 
Facilities). 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
February 26, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal

[[Page 74089]]

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

II. Background Information for the Final Rule

    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of 
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban 
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest 
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to 
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) 
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area 
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the 
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the 
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP 
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club 
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source 
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) 
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v. 
Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an 
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 
112(c)(3). Among other things, the court order, as amended on October 
15, 2007, requires that EPA complete standards for 9 area source 
categories by December 15, 2007. On September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53814), 
we proposed NESHAP for the electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking area 
source category. Other final NESHAP will complete the required 
regulatory action for the remaining area source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source 
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list 
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of 
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under 
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for 
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control 
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the preamble 
to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing standards based on GACT for the 
control of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, 
and nickel from area source EAF steelmaking facilities.
    Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and subject to standards 
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), categories of sources 
accounting for not less than 90 percent of emissions of each of seven 
specific HAP: Alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, 
hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,9-
tetrachlorodibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin. 
Standards established under CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect 
performance of MACT. On September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53817), we added EAF 
steelmaking facilities that are area sources to this list of source 
categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on the basis of mercury 
emissions. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed NESHAP, we are 
issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) for mercury 
emissions from all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources of 
HAP. The notice also announced a revision to the area source category 
list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant 
to CAA section 112(c)(3). The revision changed the name of the listed 
area source category ``Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing 
Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF)'' to ``Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking 
Facilities.''

III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability and Compliance Date

    The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing EAF steelmaking 
facility that is an area source of HAP. The owner or operator of an 
existing area source that does not have to install or modify emissions 
control equipment to meet the opacity limit for fugitive emissions must 
comply with all applicable rule requirements no later than June 30, 
2008. The owner or operator of an existing area source that must 
install or modify emission control equipment to meet the opacity limit 
for fugitive emissions may request a compliance date for the opacity 
limit that is no later than December 28, 2010 and must demonstrate to 
the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the additional time 
is needed. We revised the compliance date from 2 years to 3 years if a 
facility can demonstrate the additional time is needed to install 
controls after considering comments on the upgrades that some 
facilities may need to meet the opacity limit. The owner or operator of 
a new affected source must comply with all applicable rule requirements 
by December 28, 2007 (if the startup date is on or before December 28, 
2007) or upon startup (if the startup date is after December 28, 2007).

B. Final MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury

    The final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention 
and require an EAF owner or operator who melts scrap from motor 
vehicles either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle 
scrap only from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved 
program for the removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the 
alternative requirements described below. EAF facilities participating 
in an approved program must maintain records identifying each scrap 
provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in the EPA-
approved mercury switch removal program. A compliance option requires 
the EAF facility to prepare and operate pursuant to an approved site-
specific plan that includes specifications to the scrap

[[Page 74090]]

provider that mercury switches must be removed from motor vehicle 
bodies at an efficiency comparable to that of the EPA-approved mercury 
switch removal program (see below). An equivalent compliance option is 
provided for facilities that do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that 
contains mercury switches. We have added a new provision to the final 
rule for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap to require 
certification and records documenting that the scrap does not contain 
motor vehicle scrap.
    We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose 
to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers 
who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has 
been approved by the Administrator. The NVMSRP \3\ is an approved 
program under this final standard. In response to comments, we are also 
identifying the Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal Program mandated by 
Maine State law as an EPA-approved program. Facilities choosing to use 
an EPA-approved program as a compliance option are required to assume 
all of the responsibilities for EAF steelmakers as described in the 
NVMSRP MOU. The NVMSRP is described in detail in section III.D.1 of the 
preamble to the proposed rule. In response to comments, we are 
including in the final rule provisions for EPA-approved programs that 
specify certain responsibilities that the EAF steelmaking industry 
agreed to in signing the MOU, including developing a plan that 
demonstrates how the facility is participating in the program, 
documenting communication and outreach to scrap providers, and 
corroboration to ensure mercury switches are being removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm
 and in section IV.D.1 of this preamble. In 

particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EAF facilities may also obtain scrap from scrap providers 
participating in other programs if they obtain EPA approval of the 
program. To do so, the facility owner or operator must submit a request 
to the Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing scrap from 
scrap providers that are participating in another switch removal 
program and demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the 
program meets the following specified criteria: (1) There is an 
outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for 
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on 
switch removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least 
80 percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must 
submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and 
the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a 
percentage of switches removed is derivable).
    EAF facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap 
providers that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch 
removal program have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in 
conformance with a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury 
switches. The facility's scrap specifications must include a 
requirement for the removal of mercury switches, and the plan must 
include provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that 
mercury switches have been removed. The plan must be submitted to the 
permitting authority for approval and demonstrate how the facility will 
comply with specific requirements that include: (1) A means of 
communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to 
obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have 
been removed and the need to ensure the proper disposal of the mercury 
switches, (2) provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers 
that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap 
specifications, (3) provisions for periodic inspection, or other means 
of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are 
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury 
switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4) provisions for taking corrective 
actions if needed, and (5) requiring each motor vehicle scrap provider 
to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from 
motor vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and 
the basis for the estimate. The permitting authority may request 
documentation or additional information from the owner or operator at 
any time. The site-specific plan must establish a goal for the removal 
of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches. All documented and 
verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle 
scrap counts towards the 80 percent goal. We have clarified in the 
final rule that the owner or operator must operate according to the 
plan during the review and approval process, must address any 
deficiencies noted by the permitting authority within 60 days, and may 
request changes to the plan.
    An equivalent compliance option is provided for EAF owners or 
operators who do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury. 
The option requires the facility to certify that the only materials 
they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for 
their specialty alloy, such as chromium in certain exhaust systems.

C. Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD Vessels

    The final rule requires the owner or operator to install, operate, 
and maintain capture systems for EAF and AOD vessels that convey the 
collected emissions to a venturi scrubber or baghouse for the removal 
of PM. We are establishing separate emissions limits for new and 
existing EAF steelmaking facilities that produce less than 150,000 tpy 
of stainless or specialty steel, and for larger, non-specialty EAF 
steelmaking facilities. The small facilities are required to comply 
with a PM emissions limit of 0.8 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of steel 
for each control device serving an EAF or AOD vessel. Alternatively, 
small specialty producers may elect to comply with a PM limit of 0.0052 
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). The final rule also 
includes an opacity limit of 6 percent for melt shop emissions. All 
other EAF steelmaking facilities (both existing and new) are required 
to meet a PM limit of 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf) for emissions from a control device for an EAF or AOD vessel. The 
opacity of emissions from melt shops from these sources is limited to 6 
percent. We have clarified in the final rule that the emission limits 
apply to AOD vessels and do not apply to ladle metallurgy operations.
    Performance tests are required for each emissions source to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM and opacity limits. 
Provisions are included in the rule for conducting the tests. The owner 
or operator of an existing EAF steelmaking facility is allowed to 
certify initial compliance with the emissions limits if a previous test 
was conducted during the past 5 years using the methods and procedures 
in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the 
test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the test results, 
with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite 
process changes.
    All EAF steelmaking facilities are required to have or obtain a 
title V permit. We have clarified in the final rule that sources that 
already have a title V permit are not required to obtain a new title V 
permit as a result of this area source rule. However, sources that 
already have a title V permit must include the requirements of this 
rule through a permit reopening or at

[[Page 74091]]

renewal according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V 
permit program. See 40 CFR 70.7(f). The final rule requires each EAF 
steelmaking facility to monitor the capture system, PM control device, 
and melt shop; maintain records; and submit reports according to the 
CAM requirements in 40 CFR part 64. The existing part 64 rule requires 
the owner or operator to establish appropriate ranges for selected 
indicators for each emissions unit (i.e., operating limits) such that 
operation within the ranges will provide a reasonable assurance of 
compliance with the emissions limitations or standards.
    The CAM rule requires the owner or operator to submit certain 
monitoring information to the permitting authority for approval. This 
information includes: (1) The indicators to be monitored; (2) the 
ranges or designated conditions for such indicators, or the process by 
which such indicator ranges or designated conditions will be 
established; (3) performance criteria for the monitoring; and if 
applicable, (4) the indicator ranges and performance criteria for a 
CEMS, COMS, or predictive emissions monitoring system. The owner or 
operator also must submit a justification for the proposed elements of 
the monitoring control device (and process and capture system, if 
applicable) and operating parameter data obtained during the conduct of 
the applicable compliance or performance test.
    If monitoring indicates that the unit is operating outside of the 
acceptable range established in its permit, the owner or operator must 
return the operation to within the established range consistent with 40 
CFR 64.7(d).

D. Final GACT Standards for Scrap Management

    In addition to meeting PM and opacity limits reflecting GACT, we 
are also requiring EAF facilities to restrict the use of certain scrap 
or follow a pollution prevention plan for scrap inspection and 
selection that minimizes the amount of specific contaminants in the 
scrap.
    The requirements are based on two pollution prevention approaches 
depending on the type of scrap that is used, and a facility may have 
some scrap subject to one approach and other scrap subject to the other 
approach. One provision is for scrap that does not contain certain 
contaminants and simply prohibits the processing of scrap containing 
these contaminants (restricted scrap). Compliance is demonstrated by a 
certification that the scrap does not contain the contaminants. This 
scrap management approach is expected to be most useful to stainless 
and specialty steel producers with stringent scrap specifications that 
do not permit the use of motor vehicle scrap and scrap containing free 
organic liquids. The other approach for scrap that may contain certain 
contaminants is more prescriptive and requires a pollution prevention 
plan, scrap specifications, and procedures for determining that these 
requirements are met. This pollution prevention approach was developed 
primarily for carbon steel producers that accept motor vehicle scrap 
and many other types of ferrous scrap.
    Under the restricted scrap provision, the plant owner or operator 
must agree to restrict the use of certain scrap, including metallic 
scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, oily 
turnings, machine shop borings, transformers and capacitors containing 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-containing components, 
chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. The restriction on lead-
containing components does not apply to the production of leaded steel 
(where lead is obviously needed for production).
    The other scrap management provision requires the plant owner or 
operator to prepare a pollution prevention plan for metallic scrap 
selection and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated 
plastics, lead (except for the production of leaded steel), and free 
organic liquids. This plan must be submitted to the permitting 
authority for approval. The owner or operator is required to keep a 
copy of the plan onsite and train plant personnel with materials 
acquisition or inspection duties in the plan's requirements.
    The plan must include specifications for scrap materials to be 
depleted (to the extent practicable) of lead-containing components 
(except for the production of leaded steel), undrained used oil 
filters, chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The plan must 
also contain procedures for determining if these requirements are met 
(e.g., visual inspection or periodic audits of scrap suppliers) and 
procedures for taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments 
are not within specifications.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Area sources subject to the requirements for EAF and AOD vessels 
are subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the part 
64 CAM rule. The general recordkeeping requirements of the part 64 rule 
directs the owner or operator to comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements for title V operating permits in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii), 
which require records of analyses, measurements, and sampling data. The 
part 64 rule also requires the owner or operator to maintain records of 
monitoring data, monitor performance data, corrective actions taken, 
any written quality improvement plan (QIP), any activities undertaken 
to implement a QIP, and other supporting information required by the 
part 64 rule (such as data used to document the adequacy of monitoring, 
or records of monitoring maintenance or corrective actions).
    The general reporting requirements of part 64 require the owner or 
operator to submit monitoring reports to the permitting authority in 
accordance with the requirements for facilities with title V operating 
permits. The title V reporting requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 40 
CFR 71.6(c)(1) include a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, 
and annual compliance certifications. The part 64 reporting 
requirements specify that the 6-month monitoring report include: (1) 
Summary information on the number, duration and cause (including 
unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, as 
applicable, and the corrective actions taken; (2) summary information 
on the number, duration and cause (including unknown cause, if 
applicable) for monitor downtime incidents (other than downtime 
associated with zero and span or other daily calibration checks, if 
applicable); and (3) a description of the actions taken to implement a 
QIP during the reporting period. Upon completion of a QIP, the owner or 
operator must include in the next summary report documentation that the 
implementation of the plan has been completed and reduced the 
likelihood of similar levels of excursions or exceedances occurring.
    All EAF steelmaking facilities subject to this NESHAP are also 
subject to certain specified requirements of the NESHAP general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The general provisions include 
requirements for initial notifications; startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction records and reports; recordkeeping; and semiannual excess 
emissions and monitoring system performance reports. The information 
required in these records and reports is similar to the information 
required by the CAM rule (40 CFR part 64) and the operating permits 
rules (40 CFR parts 70 and 71).
    The NESHAP also includes specific recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for area source facilities subject to requirements for 
control of contaminants from scrap. The area

[[Page 74092]]

source facilities are required to keep records to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements for their pollution prevention plan 
for minimizing the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free 
organic liquids charged to a furnace or for the use of only restricted 
scrap and the site-specific plan for mercury or any of the mercury 
compliance options.
    As noted above, facilities subject to the site-specific plan for 
mercury are required to keep records and submit semiannual reports on 
the number of mercury switches removed by the scrap providers or the 
weight of mercury recovered from those switches, an estimate of the 
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the 
recovered mercury switches were managed at RCRA-permitted facilities. 
We have clarified that the requested information can be aggregated in 
the semiannual report and does not have to reported separately for 
every scrap shipment. Facilities participating in an EPA-approved 
program for switch removal must keep records that identify their scrap 
providers and document that they participate in an approved switch 
removal program. The final rule requires more extensive records for a 
site-specific plan than for an approved program because extensive 
recordkeeping, reporting, and measurement of success are already 
required for approval of such a removal program, the NVMSRP being the 
prime example.
    All facilities subject to the requirements for the control of 
contaminants from scrap are required to submit semiannual reports 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(e) of the general 
provisions. The report must identify any deviation from the rule 
requirements and the corrective action taken.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of 20 comments on the proposed NESHAP from two 
trade associations representing the steelmaking industry, two trade 
associations representing the scrap recycling industry, two 
associations representing State agencies, six environmental groups, 
four State agencies, two companies, a consultant, and one private 
citizen during the public comment period. Sections IV.A through IV.E of 
this preamble provide responses to the significant public comments 
received on the proposed NESHAP.

A. Basis for Area Source Standards

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT 
standards for mercury pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT 
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), is arbitrary and 
capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue 
GACT standards. The commenter further stated that EPA's proposed GACT 
for mercury emissions from EAFs does not satisfy section 112(d)(5) of 
the CAA because EPA is relying on a voluntary program to keep switches 
that contain mercury out of the EAF rather than evaluating potential 
reduction measures that are commercially available.
    Response: The commenter evidently misread the proposed rule. The 
proposed standard for mercury is based on MACT and is not based on 
GACT. As we explained at proposal (72 FR 53816), EAF steelmaking 
facilities were listed under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on the basis 
of mercury emissions, and we proposed standards for mercury under CAA 
section 112(d)(2) that reflect the performance of MACT. We identified 
the MACT floor (72 FR 53822) as the pollution prevention approach of 
using scrap only from scrap providers that are first removing mercury 
switches pursuant to an EPA-approved program. We also evaluated more 
stringent beyond-the-floor options for MACT (72 FR 53824). Additional 
discussion of our MACT determination is provided in section IV.B.1 of 
this preamble. Since the commenter did not address any aspect of the 
actual proposal, further response is unnecessary.
    If, against all natural readings, the comment is construed as 
stating that EPA must first provide a rationale as to why it is not 
issuing a MACT standard before it can issue a GACT standard under CAA 
section 112(d)(5) for HAP other than mercury, we disagree with the 
commenter for the reasons set forth in the final rules for Acrylic and 
Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical 
Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood 
Preserving (72 FR 38880, July 16, 2007). We reiterate that we do not 
view the commenter as having raised an issue with respect to GACT vs. 
MACT for HAP other than mercury; however, we provide this response in 
an abundance of caution to the extent the comment is, in some way, 
construed in this manner.

B. Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury

    We determined at proposal that the MACT floor and MACT for mercury 
emissions was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury 
switches from end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and 
shredded for use in EAFs. MACT would be implemented by EAF owners or 
operators purchasing scrap only from scrap providers that were 
participating in an EPA-approved program for switch removal, operating 
pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan (of equal effectiveness 
to an EPA-approved program) that ensured scrap providers had removed 
mercury switches, or by not melting scrap from end-of-life vehicles. We 
further proposed that the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery 
Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA-approved program. 
However, we received several comments questioning how the effectiveness 
of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and suggestions for 
improving aspects of the rule related to program transparency, 
enforceability, and implementability. We have incorporated several of 
these suggested improvements into the final rule, and we address these 
comments and describe these improvements in detail in section IV.B.3 of 
this preamble. 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 for them to 
remove mercury switches, or other means of corroboration by the 
facility to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal 
procedures. We note here that the Administrator is committed to 
evaluating the effectiveness of the approved program on a continuing 
basis and is a party to the agreement that established the NMVSRP. The 
parties (including the Administrator) recently reviewed the program's 
effectiveness after 1 year. The 1-year review showed reasonable 
progress, with recycling programs now available in every State. The 
national program was slightly ahead of the schedule projected for 
start-up. We now expect switch removals to steadily increase over the 
next year as these programs begin to fully operate. If the 
Administrator finds the program to be ineffective at the next scheduled 
review under the MOU, or at any time as provided in the rule, the 
Administrator may disapprove the program in whole or in part (e.g., for 
a particular State), and participation in the program would no longer 
be a

[[Page 74093]]

compliance option, leaving EAF owners or operators obliged to develop 
site-specific programs for EPA approval in order to meet the 
requirements of this rule. Under the site-specific program, it would 
fall on the EAF 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 EAF owner or operator to implement a site-
specific approach. In either case (whether a national program or site-
specific program), we have codified an approach that provides 
accountability and measures of effectiveness as described in detail in 
section IV.B.3 of this preamble.
    We also considered a standard based on the performance of activated 
carbon injection (ACI) with continuous monitoring for mercury as a 
beyond-the-floor option, and as we discuss in detail in section IV.B.1 
of this preamble, we rejected this option for several reasons. In 
summary, ACI has not been demonstrated for EAFs, its effectiveness is 
highly uncertain due in large part to the extreme variability in 
mercury loading from this batch operation (e.g., it is difficult to 
design and estimate the capacity of the ACI system that would be needed 
to handle the highly variable loading of mercury), and it would likely 
result in the landfilling of large quantities of hazardous waste (EAF 
dust) that is currently recycled (pursuant to RCRA subtitle C 
standards) to recover its zinc content. In addition, it would be 
costly, and the continuous monitoring that would be needed to assess 
the effectiveness of ACI is not feasible for the majority of EAF 
facilities because they have baghouses without stacks. (See 72 FR 
53817.)
1. Emission Controls and an Emission Limit for Mercury
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed standard for 
mercury does not satisfy the requirements of section 112(d)(5) of the 
CAA because EPA is relying solely upon a voluntary program to keep 
switches from cars out of the EAF rather than evaluating the potential 
reduction measures that are commercially available. One commenter noted 
that EPA's calculated cost effectiveness of $11,000/pound (lb) of 
mercury for ACI is similar to the cost effectiveness anticipated by EPA 
for municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators, and it 
is well below the control costs expected from implementation of the 
utility boiler Clean Air Mercury Rule--all rules where a technology-
based standard for mercury is based upon performance of ACI. The 
commenter notes that without further analysis to determine the non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, it 
appears that ACI is a cost effective control for mercury emissions and 
was rejected by EPA prematurely. Several commenters recommended that 
EPA require controls beyond the vehicle switch removal program. One of 
these commenters stated that ACI is widely used on other combustion 
sources (e.g., municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, 
and hazardous waste incinerators) and that ACI has already been 
successfully applied to iron and steel melters in Europe. The commenter 
stated that coal-fired boilers use ACI successfully, and no 
circumstances specific to EAFs have been identified that would indicate 
that EAFs could not use the same technology efficaciously. The 
commenter noted that the State of New Jersey estimated the cost to 
implement source separation and to install ACI on an existing baghouse 
to be less than $1.80 per ton of scrap processed. The commenter claimed 
that the cost of compliance is minimal compared to the price of a ton 
of steel ($360 to $780/ton) or a ton of scrap ($300/ton) and is not 
expected to cause any facility to close. The commenter believes these 
cost estimates indicate that add-on controls for mercury for EAFs are 
cost effective when the impacts of mercury emissions on human health 
and the environment are weighed.
    Several commenters requested that EPA include a mercury emission 
limit and monitoring strategy for EAFs rather than relying solely on a 
voluntary program. Three commenters said it is important to establish 
an emission limit and require testing for mercury because 40 to 50 
percent of the mercury comes from non-automobile sources and would not 
be removed by the switch removal program. One commenter requested that 
EPA establish a mercury emission limit, require appropriate testing to 
verify compliance, and require add-on emission controls if the emission 
limit is not met. Another commenter suggested that EPA set a mercury 
emission standard that uses a tiered approach towards demonstrating 
compliance, e.g., sources that emit less than a certain amount of 
mercury per year may be allowed to comply with the pollution prevention 
standard along with a mercury emissions monitoring requirement. The 
commenter continues by stating that more stringent mercury monitoring 
should be required for more significant mercury emitters with the 
understanding that if a certain level is not reached within a given 
time frame (e.g., three years), the source must install mercury 
emissions controls and implement associated monitoring. Another 
commenter requested a protective backstop for the MACT requirement, 
including advanced mercury emissions removal technology and continuous 
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for facilities that do not meet the 
mercury pollution prevention standards.
    One commenter stated that two EAFs in Michigan have mercury 
emission limits and must perform stack testing. This commenter asks 
that if EPA determines that an emission limit is not practical for the 
area source standard, EPA should consider a percent reduction standard 
similar to what is required in the State of New Jersey (75 percent). 
The commenter asks that measures and targets be established and 
consequences identified if targets are not achieved. The commenter said 
measures and targets include an estimate of mercury-containing devices 
collected, inlet and outlet stack testing, and baghouse dust analysis 
to confirm reduced mercury inputs and emissions. The commenter stated 
that identifying spikes in the mercury concentration of baghouse dust 
provides information to conduct additional quality control on scrap 
shipments.
    Two commenters claimed that ACI is not a demonstrated technology 
for EAFs and that there is a great deal of uncertainty about its 
potential effectiveness due in large part to the high variability of 
mercury emission levels. The commenters also stated that the use of ACI 
would have a negative effect on recycling EAF dust because the mercury 
in the dust makes it necessary to landfill the dust instead of 
recycling it. The commenters agreed with EPA's pollution prevention 
approach and stated that EPA properly explained the technological and 
economic feasibility difficulties associated with developing and 
enforcing a mercury emission limit for EAFs, including the fact that 
continuous monitoring for mercury from EAFs is impractical.
    Response: At proposal, we determined that the MACT floor for

[[Page 74094]]

mercury was a pollution prevention approach based on preventing mercury 
switches from entering the EAF. We also explained at proposal that 
standards requiring pollution prevention were not work practices under 
section 112(h), and even assuming for the sake of argument that they 
were work practices, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 
emissions limit for mercury within the meaning of section 112(h) (72 FR 
53817). We received no adverse comments on or challenges to our MACT 
floor determination or our conclusion that pollution prevention 
standards were not work practices under section 112(h).
    We evaluated ACI as a beyond-the-floor control option for mercury 
emissions and rejected the option for several reasons (72 FR 53824). We 
also considered the feasibility of establishing an emission limit for 
mercury and explained in detail why we chose instead an approach based 
on a pollution prevention standard (72 FR 53816). We disagree that the 
proposed standard for mercury relies solely on a voluntary program to 
keep mercury switches out of the scrap supply. First, there is nothing 
voluntary about the obligations of EAF owners or operators under the 
rule. They are not in compliance with the rule unless they obtain scrap 
from dealers participating in an effective program to remove mercury 
switches. Moreover, the standard contains detailed requirements for 
preparing and operating a pollution prevention plan that must be 
approved by the Administrator, specific criteria that will be used by 
the Administrator to review and approve plans, criteria for approval of 
switch removal programs to ensure they are effective, and reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements (including progress reports). The 
Administrator can evaluate the success of an approved switch removal 
program based on progress reports that provide the number of mercury 
switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and the 
percent of switches removed. Based on this evaluation, the 
Administrator may subsequently disapprove a previously approved switch 
removal program or a site-specific plan. An example of an existing 
switch recovery program that has been documented as successful is the 
one implemented by the State of Maine, which was one of the first such 
programs and was in place in advance of the NVMSRP. The Maine program 
is now fully operational and reported a recovery rate of over 90 
percent for mercury switches in 2006.
    The commenters provided no new information or additional facts with 
respect to ACI that were not considered and addressed at proposal when 
we evaluated it as a beyond-the-floor option (72 FR 53824, 53825) and 
concluded that:

    Based on the fact that activated carbon injection is not a 
demonstrated mercury control technology for EAF facilities, the 
uncertainty in design and performance of the add-on controls and 
hence of the actual mercury emission reductions for EAF facilities, 
the cost impacts per ton of emission reduction, and the adverse 
energy and solid waste impacts, we determined that control beyond 
the floor is not warranted for mercury. Therefore, we are proposing 
that the removal of mercury switches from the scrap before it is 
melted in the EAF represents MACT for mercury for new and existing 
EAF facilities.

We emphasize again that ACI was not rejected as a beyond-the-floor 
option solely on the basis of cost effectiveness. We concluded that ACI 
has not been demonstrated for EAFs and that there is a great deal of 
uncertainty in design (e.g., the carbon capacity that would be needed 
to treat a highly variable inlet loading of mercury) and potential 
performance (i.e., how much mercury would actually be removed), and 
hence of the actual mercury emission reductions that might be achieved. 
We also considered and discussed the adverse energy and solid waste 
impacts.
2. Monitoring for Mercury
    Comment: Several commenters stated that stack monitoring for 
mercury emissions from EAFs was needed to assess the effectiveness of 
the NVMSRP and other programs. These commenters believe it is important 
to have information on the actual emissions, the emissions impact of 
pollution prevention measures, and an indication of need for additional 
actions that may be needed to further reduce mercury emissions. One 
commenter stated that CEMS are essential to establish that the 
voluntary switch removal program reduces emissions. Another commenter 
requested that the monitoring program include a requirement to test 
emissions within 6 months of publication of the final rule to establish 
a baseline for each facility.
    One commenter stated that although the proposal states that no 
feasible methods of emissions testing exist for any EAF facility (e.g., 
continuous emissions monitoring), there are monitoring technologies 
that are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry. The 
commenter 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 commenter also noted 
that EPA has recently promulgated the ``sorbent tube'' method for 
sampling stack gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75, 
appendix K). The commenter believes 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 an EAF. 
Another commenter also noted that CEMS are available and in use at 
other types of mercury-emitting facilities.
    One commenter stated that data from frequent monitoring will be 
essential to determine if actual reductions in mercury emissions have 
been achieved in order to determine whether the ``sunset'' of the 
pollution prevention standard in 2017 should be allowed to occur. One 
commenter was concerned that if there are no mercury emission 
standards, it may be very difficult for EPA to conduct its residual 
risk determination. The commenter wonders how EPA will calculate 
residual risk when there has been no attempt to establish a baseline of 
mercury emissions, determine the effectiveness of the switch removal 
program, or measure emissions after controls are implemented. One 
commenter stated that at least one steel mill of which they are aware 
has reported higher levels of mercury emissions since starting to 
participate in the NVMSRP. The commenter notes that frequent monitoring 
is needed to determine whether the program is effective.
    One commenter suggested that EPA require facilities to keep records 
of the sources of scrap metal entering the facility in a manner that 
allows correlation of scrap sources with elevated mercury emissions and 
that these records be available to the Agency and accessible for public 
review.
    Response: At proposal, we considered the use of CEMS for mercury 
(72 FR 53817):

    We therefore examined the technological and economic feasibility 
of continuous monitoring for mercury from these sources. We note 
first that mercury CEMS are not demonstrated for EAF, raising a 
threshold question of their technical feasibility for all EAF. 
Furthermore, most EAF discharge emissions from positive pressure 
baghouses without stacks. Continuous mercury monitoring would not be 
technically feasible for these EAF (i.e., stackless EAF), even 
assuming that mercury CEMS were otherwise

[[Page 74095]]

demonstrated for EAF. This is because volumetric flow rate and 
concentration would need to be determined by CEMS to measure the 
mass emission rate of mercury, and without a stack, it is nearly 
impossible to obtain an accurate measurement of volumetric flow rate 
or to obtain representative measurements of mercury concentration in 
the discharged emissions. Indeed, EPA has previously determined that 
the use of continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) was not 
feasible for positive pressure baghouses without stacks for this 
reason.

    The commenters did not address any of these points that we made at 
proposal. After further consideration of CEMS, we continue to believe 
that CEMS are not feasible for monitoring baghouses without stacks.
    One commenter stated that batch processes such as EAF steelmaking 
could be monitored for mercury emissions using the sorbent tube method. 
We agree that there are monitoring methods for mercury that can be used 
for batch processes; however, the problem with applying CEMS or the 
sorbent tube method is because of baghouses without stacks, not because 
steelmaking is a batch process. We received no other comments that 
addressed, much less refuted, EPA's view of the fundamental 
shortcomings of applying mercury CEMS to EAFs without stacks that were 
discussed at proposal.
    We discuss in much greater detail in section IV.B.3 of this 
preamble the monitoring requirements of the rule and how they are used 
to determine the effectiveness of the standard. We have developed 
monitoring requirements that are appropriate for the pollution 
prevention standard, and since we have concluded it is not necessary or 
appropriate to establish a mercury stack emission limit, it is not 
appropriate and in most cases it is infeasible to require monitoring 
for mercury emissions.
    The lack of a mercury emission standard will not affect our ability 
to conduct a residual risk assessment in the future. We will by that 
time have historical data on the effectiveness of the MACT standard, 
and mass balance approaches as well as innovative methods for sampling 
and analysis of sources or ambient air concentrations may provide 
additional data.
    We cannot directly address the commenter who claimed that one 
plant's mercury emissions had increased since joining the NVMSRP 
because the commenter provided no details to substantiate the claim. 
However, there is no doubt that removal of mercury switches before 
motor vehicle scrap is melted will reduce mercury emissions, whether 
the removal takes place under the NVMSRP or under other switch removal 
programs.
3. Effectiveness of the Pollution Prevention Standard for Mercury
    Comment: Several commenters stated that requirements to verify the 
effectiveness of the NVMSRP and other switch removal programs are 
needed and that accountability is not adequately addressed. The 
commenters claimed that there are no enforceable mechanisms to ensure 
effective participation in or compliance with the switch removal 
programs and identified the need for increased recordkeeping and 
reporting beyond just participation in a switch removal program. One 
commenter requested that EPA include enforceable measures of 
accountability that include consequences if the programs do not meet 
their goals. Two commenters requested that quantifiable performance 
measures be included to verify the effectiveness of mercury reduction 
programs. One commenter requested written documentation and audits of 
program participation of suppliers, evaluation of switch recovery 
rates, and mercury emissions testing and monitoring requirements. 
Another commenter suggested incorporating verifiable measurement and 
accountability systems and using some of the specific language from the 
MOU to make the scrap plans accountable and enforceable. This commenter 
also requested that EPA revise the rule to include enforceable scrap 
specification requirements and binding contracts with scrap suppliers 
(rather than a ``means of communicating'') and require recordkeeping, 
reporting, and certification to assure that scrap meets specifications, 
as well as contract termination in the event of deviations. This 
commenter also states that the switch removal requirements must be more 
than a ``goal''; they must be achieved through binding contracts 
establishing removal requirements and effective tracking, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Two commenters noted that 
since there are no effective performance measures, goals, or 
consequences for failure to remove switches, there is no strong 
incentive for the NVMSRP to continue after the initial funding has been 
expended.
    Two commenters requested achievement of specific switch recovery 
percentages as the rule is implemented. They suggest a ramped capture 
rate of 30 percent for year one, 50 percent for year two, and 80 
percent in year three. The commenters believe it is essential that the 
rule require increasing mercury switch capture rates so that a rate of 
80 percent or more is achieved within two to three years.
    One commenter stated that two studies of switch removal and mercury 
emission reductions do not constitute evidence of a cause and effect 
relationship between removal of switches and mercury reductions. The 
commenter believes that documentation based on a large number of 
studies can determine the cause and effect relationship. The commenter 
further states that because no monitoring or testing of mercury 
emissions are required by the proposed rule, no evidence of correlation 
between amounts of mercury emitted and the quality of scrap can be 
demonstrated, and there would be no evidence that the switch removal 
program is working to reduce mercury emissions.
    Several commenters noted that the proposed rule is silent on what 
happens if the 80 percent switch removal goal is not met. One commenter 
believes the rule should include a final date when the goal is to be 
met and identify emission standards to be met as an alternative to the 
80 percent removal goal.
    One commenter was concerned about using an estimate of the 
percentage of mercury switches removed to determine whether an approved 
plan should continue to be approved because the estimate of the 
percentage of mercury switches removed is highly uncertain and 
dependant on many assumptions. The commenter stated that determining 
the effectiveness of site-specific mercury switch removal programs by 
comparing uncertain statistics with an aggressive removal goal (80 
percent) may cause effective programs to have their approval revoked.
    Response: The NVMSRP resulted from a two-year process of 
collaboration and negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to 
create a dedicated nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing 
switches from end-of-life vehicles. The stakeholders included EPA, 
automakers, steel manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap 
recyclers, and State agency representatives. These stakeholders signed 
an MOU detailing their respective responsibilities and commitments in 
the national switch recovery effort. This effort will result in 
substantial reductions in mercury emissions from EAFs by removing the 
majority of mercury from metal scrap. In addition, it will have 
environmental benefits from reducing mercury emissions from sources 
other than EAFs and will reduce mercury releases to media other than 
air. We disagree with

[[Page 74096]]

the commenter that without testing for mercury emissions, there would 
be no evidence that the switch removal program is working to reduce 
mercury emissions. Many States have implemented switch removal 
programs, and major environmental groups have participated in and 
signed agreements supporting the programs, both of which are 
indications of the participants' belief in the ability of such programs 
to reduce mercury emissions. EPA recounts this history not to show that 
the Agency is blindly accepting the 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 the MACT floor and MACT for reducing 
mercury emissions from EAFs. 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 an EAF, the 
mercury emissions are prevented.
    Thousands of automobile recyclers have already joined the NVMSRP, 
although not all members have yet sent in recovered switches. (As we 
discuss in more detail below, there is a lag time as dismantlers 
accumulate enough switches to fill a shipping container.) 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 Web site (http://www.elvsolutions.org).

    As we discussed at proposal, there are many elements in the NVMSRP 
that are designed to measure success and to evaluate its effectiveness. 
One year following the effective date of the MOU and each year 
thereafter, the parties or their designees and EPA agreed to meet to 
review the effectiveness of the program at the State level based upon 
recovery and capture rates. The parties to the agreement will use the 
results to improve the performance of the program and to explore 
implementation of a range of options in that effort. Two and one-half 
years from the inception of the program, the parties agreed to meet and 
review overall program effectiveness and performance. This review will 
include analysis of the number of switches that have been collected and 
what factors have contributed to program effectiveness. The 
Administrator is one of the parties committed to this review and 
assessment of effectiveness, and the Administrator may disapprove the 
program as a compliance option (in whole or in part) at any time based 
on the assessment of effectiveness.
    A key element of measuring the success of the program is 
maintaining a database of participants that includes 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 recovered. 
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 six 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 recovered and number 
of mercury switches by State; and an estimated national capture rate. 
Other information includes the total number and identity of dismantlers 
or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal from the program. 
Mercury switch removal is already underway--more than 1,855 pounds of 
mercury from over 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 and NVMSRP are fully 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 EAF owner or operator 
responsibilities and to improve the effectiveness of EPA-approved 
programs, which may include programs other than the NVMSRP. In 
addition, we are including these same requirements in the option for 
developing a site-specific plan for switch removal. The rule changes 
include:
     EAF owners or operators must develop and maintain onsite a 
plan demonstrating the manner through which their facility is 
participating in the EPA-approved program. The plan must include 
facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, 
and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for 
each facility.
     EAF owners or operators must provide in the plan 
documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to 
suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need for the removal of 
mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the 
permitting authority, the owner or operator must provide examples of 
materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, 
contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection 
protocols.
     EAF owners or operators must conduct periodic inspections 
or provide other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are 
aware of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to 
minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
    One commenter claimed that because no monitoring or testing for 
mercury is required, there is no way to determine if the pollution 
prevention approach is reducing mercury emissions. We strongly disagree 
because the number of switches or weight of mercury recovered is a 
direct measure of the amount of mercury prevented from entering the 
environment. As we explained at proposal and in an earlier comment 
response, it is not feasible to require continuous emission monitoring 
at EAFs with baghouses without stacks, and because of the variability 
in mercury emissions from this batch process, periodic manual sampling 
is inadequate and provides only a snapshot in time of the emissions.
    Commenters also asked what happens if the 80 percent goal is not 
met. Another stated that there is a great deal of uncertainty in 
estimating the percent of switches removed and that the use of this 
uncertain statistic could cause effective switch removal programs to 
have their approval revoked. We addressed these issues at proposal (72 
FR 53824) and we note again that the 80 percent minimum recovery rate 
is a goal that all parties to the MOU agreed to work toward. We 
recognize that 80

[[Page 74097]]

percent recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two; 
however, the parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at 
least four million switches in the first three years of the NVMSRP and 
agreed to exceed this amount if possible. We believe that recovery of 
four million switches (approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per 
switch) in the first three years is a good beginning for working toward 
recovery of 80 percent of mercury switches. It is necessary to 
acknowledge that there will be an initial delay in many States that 
have recently joined the NVMSRP while individual dismantlers accumulate 
sufficient switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been 
estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch 
collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS Web site at http://www.elvsolutions.org
, switches are typically collected in 3.5 gallon 

buckets that can hold up to 450 mercury pellets from switch 
assemblies).
    Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury 
switches is not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a 
program. In the proposed rule, we explained that the Administrator can 
evaluate the success of an EPA-approved program at any time, identify 
States where improvements might be needed, recommend options for 
improving the program in a particular State, and if necessary, 
disapprove the program as implemented in a State from being used to 
demonstrate compliance with the rule based on an assessment of this 
performance. The evaluation would be based on progress reports 
submitted to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury 
switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and 
percent of mercury switches recovered. The Administrator can assess the 
information with respect to the program's goal for percent switch 
recovery and trends in recovery rates. For example, as the NVMSRP has 
ramped up, switch recovery rates have increased from 241,000 switches 
in 2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 months of 2007.
    Comment: One commenter noted that in the NVMSRP MOU, funding was 
negotiated with the understanding that the EAF rule would provide 
strong incentives for switch removal after the incentive fund was 
depleted. The commenter states that the proposed rule does not appear 
to provide such incentives because there are no performance measures, 
goals, or consequences for failing to remove switches. The commenter 
further states that to provide accountability and enhance 
effectiveness, the rule should stipulate enforceable consequences for 
the EAF sector in the event that the pollution prevention approach is 
not sufficient to achieve necessary emission reductions. The commenter 
suggests that if existing and proposed programs are not successful, 
then additional emission control and monitoring requirements and/or 
further EAF financial support to the NVMSRP should be required.
    Response: The rule provides a strong incentive for EAF owners or 
operators to continue their support for the NVMSRP even after the 
incentive fund is depleted. Facilities that do not participate in an 
EPA-approved program must develop and operate by site-specific switch 
removal plans that may prove to be more burdensome than that of 
participating in the NVMSRP. The rule requires that metal scrap 
purchased for use in an EAF be procured from a supplier that removes 
mercury convenience light switches. If an EAF owner or operator fails 
to meet the requirements related to audits of suppliers, reporting, 
recordkeeping or any other rule provisions, then the owner or operator 
is at risk of being found in violation of the rule. If the facility is 
at risk of non-compliance because of the actions of a scrap provider, 
then it is in the interest of the owner or operator to take corrective 
actions and fix the problem with the scrap provider or to terminate the 
scrap purchasing contract because of failure to meet scrap 
specifications.
    Comment: One commenter stated that a review of the End of Life 
Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) database indicates a number of cases where 
individual dismantlers are participants in the NVMSRP, but have yet to 
submit collected switches.
    Response: The ELVS Web site, which provides information on the 
NVMSRP and its members, includes the date when a particular automobile 
or scrap recycler joined the program. As the facility-specific data 
show, some recyclers joined the program during its first year of 
implementation or even earlier. We do not believe that this should 
cause undue concern at this time. Some States had instituted 
statutorily mandated programs prior to the establishment of the 
national program and, therefore, have been operating for a longer 
period of time. Automobile and scrap recyclers in these States have had 
more of incentive to participate early on in the program. It is 
possible that automobile and scrap recyclers in those States have 
already submitted switches to be recycled, some of which may have been 
stored in anticipation of a future opportunity to dispose or recycle 
them. States that have just joined the national program are clearly in 
a ramp-up phase. There will be an initial delay associated with many 
new programs while individual dismantlers accumulate sufficient 
switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been estimated that it 
may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch collection bucket that 
typically holds about 400 mercury pellets from switches. The same type 
of lag time in shipping was noted when one of the first switch removal 
programs in the country was initiated by the State of Maine.
    The data show that during its first full year, the program has made 
significant progress, and as we pointed out earlier, over 1,855 pounds 
of mercury has been recovered, and this represents almost 20 percent of 
our estimated annual reduction in mercury emissions (5 tons per year) 
once the rule is fully implemented. The second year of the program will 
shift from roll-out to ramping up participation and collection rates. 
We should see significant progress toward achieving 80 percent recovery 
of switches in the third year of program implementation.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the meaning of ``80 percent'' in 
the reduction of mercury switches: Does it refer to the convenience 
switches in one automobile, the total weight of mercury in switches in 
a vehicle being turned into scrap, the total number of switches and 
other sources of mercury in one vehicle, or none of the above.
    Response: ``80 percent'' switch recovery is the goal, and the 
percent of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined in the MOU) 
is the number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life vehicles 
divided by the total mercury switch population in end-of-life vehicles 
in a given time period (e.g., each year of the program) times 100.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the credit allowed in 
calculating the 80 percent mercury switch removal goal for site-
specific plans. The commenter objected to the credit because it allows 
counting of mercury removed from components other than convenience 
lighting while the approved plan requires only the removal of mercury 
switches from convenience lighting. The commenter stated that the 
provision is not consistent with the MOU, which states that only 
mercury switches used for convenience lighting will be counted for 
purposes of measuring program performance. The commenter argued that 
site-specific plans should not be held to a higher standard than the 
NVMSRP.

[[Page 74098]]

    Response: While it is true that only switches from convenience 
lighting apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS 
accepts all automobile mercury switches (including those from anti-lock 
brake systems (ABS)), and the automobile or scrap recyclers that remove 
them are paid the incentive fee of $1.00 per switch. We believe that 
this provides an incentive to remove switches from other systems as 
well as for convenience lighting. In the requirements for site-specific 
plans, other sources of mercury are included in determining the 80 
percent goal, such as ABS, security systems, active ride control, and 
other applications. Inclusion of these other components in the site-
specific programs provides an incentive for their removal. These 
mercury-containing components contribute less mercury (13 percent 
compared to 87 percent from convenience light switches), and they are 
more difficult to locate, identify, and remove. Mercury-containing 
components in ABS will be the components other than convenience light 
switches that are most often removed. The removal of these components 
requires removing the rear seat and dismantling the ABS. We believe 
that if a dismantler chooses to take the time to remove and recover 
mercury components from ABS or other components, they should receive 
some type of credit for doing so, thus they can include them in their 
80 percent minimum recovery goal.
    Comment: One commenter stated that at least two EAF facilities are 
exempt from the proposed rule because they are collocated with major 
source integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. The 
commenter noted that if these facilities are not covered by the rule 
and choose not to participate in the voluntary NVMSRP, then these 
facilities and their suppliers will enjoy at least two competitive 
advantages over the 91 facilities that will have to comply with the 
rule: They will have lower costs and they will be free of any legal 
requirement to address mercury in the scrap that they receive, 
generate, and or use as feedstock. The commenter also stated that scrap 
from any supplier who chooses to ignore mercury will preferentially 
flow to these facilities because there will be no legal or voluntary 
obligation for that supply chain to address mercury.
    Response: As we stated at proposal, we plan to list EAFs as a major 
source category and develop MACT standards for HAP emissions, including 
mercury.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the criteria by which the 
Administrator will evaluate semiannual reports are not specified for 
the option of a site-specific plan for switch removal. The commenter 
went on to state that there is no incentive to meet the requirements 
and no penalty for failing to do so. Another commenter is concerned 
about the proposed rule's mechanism for approval of alternative switch 
recovery programs since States vary in their level of participation in 
the NVMSRP and have a variety of statutory and regulatory requirements, 
State level MOUs, State incentive funds, and other program components. 
The commenter said that to ensure consistency and enforceability, clear 
criteria and procedures that ensure any program's effectiveness need to 
be specified in the rule. One commenter suggested the Administrator 
specifically consider the participation rate of scrap suppliers to an 
area steel mill and the collection rate of the largest scrap suppliers 
to the facility prior to approving the goals. One of the commenters 
noted that as proposed, the rule directs the Administrator to determine 
if NVMSRP or alternative programs are adequately recovering switches, 
but provides no quantitative requirements.
    Response: As we discussed above, the Administrator will evaluate 
the number of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of 
vehicles processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered. (See 
Sec.  63.10685(b)(1)(v) and (b)(2)(iii)). The Administrator can assess 
the information with respect to the program's goal for percent switch 
recovery and trends in recovery rates. The criteria are not hard and 
fixed because flexibility is needed to consider potentially lower 
recovery rates as the program is established and higher rates as the 
number of participants peaks. We have described earlier the database 
used for documenting and measuring mercury switch recovery. We believe 
that this database provides sufficient transparency to ensure that the 
program is making measurable program progress and assuring 
accountability while at the same time remaining flexible.
    We have provided sufficient detail in the rule for the criteria 
used to approve State and other switch removal programs: (1) There is 
an outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for 
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on 
switch removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least 
80 percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must 
submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and 
the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed.
4. Other Sources of Mercury in Scrap
    Comment: Several commenters claimed that a significant amount of 
mercury comes from sources other than automobile scrap, including 
household and commercial appliances, heating and air conditioning 
units, and industrial equipment. Some of these commenters suggested 
addressing these sources of mercury by expanding the NVMSRP. One 
commenter stated that the mercury from sources other than automobiles 
was on the order of 40 to 50 percent of the mercury in scrap. Another 
commenter noted that the counteracting effect of increased use of ABS, 
more mercury containing electronic devices in cars, and other mercury-
containing items, could conceivably lead to a net increase in the 
mercury in scrap processed by steel mills.
    One commenter stated that the rule should address these mercury 
sources to scrap metal by incorporation into the NVMSRP or through the 
establishment and funding (by mercury product manufacturers and the EAF 
sector) of collection programs targeting other products that contribute 
to scrap metal. The commenter suggested as an example a possible 
requirement that mercury thermostat manufacturers and the EAF sector 
could fund an expansion of the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) 
program, a voluntary end-of-life mercury thermostat collection 
initiative supported by thermostat manufacturers. The commenter stated 
that the TRC is a well-established program but provides no recovery 
incentives and has achieved a poor national recovery rate.
    Response: At proposal, we considered the removal of other mercury-
containing components in automobiles, such as switches in ABS, and 
determined the option was not justified as a beyond-the floor standard 
(72 FR 53824). These sensors are considerably more difficult and time 
consuming to remove than are convenience light switches, and they 
contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of the mercury in end-
of-life vehicles comes from convenience light switches). The commenters 
provided no data or rationale to support that the removal of other 
sources of mercury from the scrap supply was economically and 
technologically feasible as a beyond-the-floor option.
    We have no data or documentation that non-automobile sources 
contribute 40 to 50 percent of the mercury as the commenters claim, and 
we have some indications their estimate is quite high. For example, a 
report (available at http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/appliancereport.html
) prepared for the State of Massachusetts


[[Page 74099]]

stated that mercury switches in obsolete appliances accounted for less 
than 1 percent of the mercury in the solid waste stream. Most mercury-
containing components in appliances were phased out several years ago, 
and any that might remain would contribute very little mercury to the 
scrap supply compared to switches in automobiles. In addition, end-of-
life vehicles contribute approximately 7 times more in tons of total 
metal to the scrap supply than do obsolete appliances; consequently, 
these factors suggest that end-of-life vehicles are the primary 
contributor to mercury in the scrap supply. While some ABS contained 
mercury sensors as we noted at proposal, these too have been phased out 
and were much less common and contained less mercury than convenience 
light switches.
5. Role of State Agencies
    Comment: One commenter claimed that State agencies would have 
little or no say in approving site-specific pollution prevention plans 
and that State and/or local agencies should have more authority over 
such approvals. Another commenter noted that part of the approval 
process can be delegated to the permitting authority, but there may be 
many varying programs and elements of programs that individual 
companies or facilities may wish to implement, some of which States do 
not have any experience with. The commenter recommends that EPA retain 
the responsibility for approving programs and provide clear criteria 
for an acceptable program, and use these criteria to approve existing 
State programs that are not part of the NVMSRP.
    Two commenters were concerned about the ability of air agencies to 
enforce a pollution prevention program that will, in many cases, be 
overseen by solid and hazardous waste programs. The commenters noted 
that the requirements of the switch removal program must be 
incorporated into air permits, and the provisions must be clearly 
understood and enforceable by State air agencies in cooperation with 
their counterparts in other media programs. The commenters are 
concerned that if these provisions are not explicit in the program, 
this pollution prevention approach will not be effective.
    One State agency commenter asked that EPA approve the vehicle 
mercury switch recovery program mandated by Maine State law as an EPA-
approved program under the rule. The commenter noted that the Maine 
program has been the most successful switch recovery program to date, 
with a 2006 recovery rate of over 90 percent for all mercury switches--
not just convenience light switches. The commenter further added that 
the program meets or exceeds all of the criteria that are identified in 
the proposed rule as necessary to effect mercury reductions from EAFs.
    One commenter recommended that EPA grant pre-approval of existing 
State programs. The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight 
existing State programs (which account for about 1,900 participants), 
would eliminate the need for scrap providers participating in those 
programs to obtain EPA approval of their site-specific plans.
    Response: We agree that State agencies should be involved in 
reviewing and approving or disapproving site-specific pollution 
prevention plans. We expect that the State permitting authority will 
have a better understanding of the facilities in their State and their 
site-specific operating conditions and any special circumstances. We 
are clarifying that the rule delegates to the States the authority to 
implement and enforce those requirements in the rule dealing with 
contaminants from scrap except for the approval of national, State, or 
local agency programs under the option for approved mercury programs. 
We believe that such broad programs should require EPA approval and 
that it is not appropriate for a State agency to evaluate and approve a 
national program or their own program. The rule should be implemented 
by State air programs and not by solid and hazardous waste programs.
    We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery program 
mandated by State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program because they 
submitted documentation that the requirements are equivalent to (or 
more stringent than) the approved national program. The program in 
Maine represents MACT, and we explained at proposal that MACT is a 
national, State, local or facility-specific switch recovery program 
that meets specific criteria. No other States made such requests or 
submitted information showing equivalency; consequently, we are not 
currently identifying other State programs as EPA-approved in the final 
rule.
6. Comments on Specific Rule Changes
    Comment: One commenter stated that in Sec.  63.10685(b)(1)(i) and 
(ii), the requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle 
bodies used to make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of 
inaccessible switches. The commenter suggests replacing ``mercury 
switches'' with ``accessible mercury switches.''
    Response: We have defined mercury switch to include only those 
switches that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism. Our 
information indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily 
removed, and it is important to the success of the pollution prevention 
program that they be removed. Consequently, we are not adding the 
additional requirement that they be ``accessible,'' which would 
introduce additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be 
made as to what is accessible.
    Comment: One commenter stated the requirement in Sec.  
63.10685(b)(1)(B) for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets 
specifications does not seem to allow for uncertainty or error. The 
commenter suggested that the language read ``Provisions for obtaining 
assurance from scrap providers that to the best of their knowledge, 
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap 
specification''.
    Response: We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter 
is necessary because the phrase ``to the best of their knowledge'' is 
subjective and likely creates confusion rather than clarity. The EAF 
owner or operator must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the 
scrap meets specifications.
    Comment: One commenter said the requirement in Sec.  
63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C) for a means of corroboration to ensure that scrap 
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to 
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap should 
be replaced with appropriate steps ``to encourage the removal of 
accessible mercury switches from motor vehicles to be shredded.''
    Response: We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap 
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to 
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is 
necessary to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution 
prevention requirements.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the requirements in 
Sec.  63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require 
scrap providers to divulge confidential business information (CBI) or 
to provide sensitive information to EAF operators to comply.
    Response: It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and EAF 
operator to provide the information required by the rule and to 
establish procedures if necessary to protect confidential information. 
The requirements cited by the commenter refer to: (1) Periodic

[[Page 74100]]

inspections of scrap providers and dismantlers to ensure appropriate 
steps are being taken to remove mercury switches; (2) estimates of the 
number of switches removed; and (3) semiannual progress reports that 
provide the number of switches or weight of mercury removed, number of 
vehicles processed, estimate of the percent of switches removed, and 
certification of proper disposal of the switches. This information is 
an essential monitoring component of the rule to measure the 
effectiveness of a facility's pollution prevention program. The 
information on number of vehicles processed can be aggregated for a 
facility if it is important not to reveal the number of vehicles 
processed by a given scrap provider. We do not see nor did the 
commenter identify exactly what component of the requested information 
would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that there is CBI 
involved, EPA and the permitting authorities have established 
procedures for managing and safeguarding CBI and will, of course, 
utilize them.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.  
63.10685(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to 
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of end-of-
life vehicles. The commenter stated that to impose such burdensome 
requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far exceeds the 
Agency's regulatory authority.
    Response: The burden imposed by the Agency is on the EAF owner or 
operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a critical 
monitoring component of the rule. The EAF owner or operator in turn 
must require this information from scrap providers, and if such 
information is not obtained, the EAF owner or operator could be found 
in violation of the rule.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed requirement for EPA 
approval of the scrap pollution prevention plan and mercury switch 
removal plan if prior approval is needed before the plan can be 
implemented or a change made. The commenter argued that prior approval 
would require all EAF operations to be shut down from the effective 
date of the rule until the plan is approved (unless EPA can approve all 
plans in the limited time available), that the need to respond to scrap 
that is presently available precludes the ability of the facility to 
seek prior approval of changes, and that it is unclear that EPA can 
provide meaningful review of scrap plans. The commenter suggested 
language that would require facilities to keep a copy of the plan 
onsite and update the plan to address any deficiency within 90 days of 
receiving a written notice from the Administrator. The commenter stated 
that recordkeeping and compliance certification requirements should be 
added consistent with the requirement.
    Response: We continue to believe that the pollution prevention 
plans must be submitted to the permitting authority for review and 
approval to ensure they adequately address the requirements in the 
rule. We are clarifying in the final rule that the owner or operator 
must operate according to the plan as submitted during the review and 
approval process, operate according to the approved plan at all times 
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the permitting 
authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan. We are also 
clarifying that the owner or operator may request approval to revise 
the plan and may operate according to the revised plan unless and until 
the revision is disapproved by the permitting authority.
    Comment: One commenter pointed to the provision in Sec.  
63.10685(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval 
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data. The 
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and 
the effective date of the revocation provide sufficient time for the 
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under Sec.  
63.10685(b)(1) and if there was a process in place for seeking 
reconsideration of revocation.
    Response: We are clarifying in the final rule that the authority 
for the approval of site-specific plans is delegated to the permitting 
authority. This is what the proposed rule allowed because this 
authority was not among those listed in the rule as not being 
delegated. We believe the 90-day period is adequate for the approval 
process. The rule has no formal process for seeking reconsideration of 
revocation.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed definition of 
``scrap provider'' be revised because the definition includes brokers 
who have no oversight over scrap preparation and delivery. According to 
the commenter, a revised definition should allow brokers to be 
considered ``scrap providers'' as a contractual matter. The commenter 
suggested that EPA define ``scrap provider'' to mean ``the final 
preparer of scrap delivered to a steel mill, or a broker when a 
brokered transaction specifies that the broker provide information to 
the steel mill from the scrap processors participating in the brokered 
transaction.''
    Response: We disagree because the definition as proposed allows a 
broker to be considered a scrap provider. The EAF owner or operator 
must ensure that the broker receives scrap only from suppliers 
participating in an EPA-approved program, and we have clarified this in 
the final rule. For the site-specific option, the EAF owner or operator 
must obtain assurance from all scrap providers that mercury switches 
have been removed and provide an accounting of the number of switches 
removed and vehicles processed for all scrap providers, along with all 
of the other requirements in the site-specific plan.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed definition of 
``motor vehicle scrap'' be revised to refer to shredded scrap that 
contains shredded end-of-life vehicles. The commenter explained that 
shredded scrap typically includes shredded end-of-life or obsolete 
appliances as well as other materials. Alternatively, the commenter 
suggested replacing the definition of ``motor vehicle scrap'' with a 
definition of ``shredded scrap'', which would contain some fraction of 
shredded end-of-life vehicles.
    Response: The definition of motor vehicle scrap is specific to 
vehicles processed in a shredder. We do not see a need to revise the 
definitions as suggested by the commenter.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA revise Sec.  
63.10685(b) to clarify that scrap that does not contain motor vehicle 
scrap does not need to meet one of the three compliance options for 
mercury. The commenter suggested using the term ``motor vehicle scrap 
provider'' instead of ``scrap provider.'' Otherwise, the commenter 
asked that EPA add a fourth compliance option under Sec.  63.19685(b) 
for scrap that contains no motor vehicle scrap and require 
certification to that effect for the scrap provider, contract for 
scrap, or scrap shipment. The commenter stated that recordkeeping and 
compliance certification requirements should be added consistent with 
the requirement.
    Response: We have clarified in the final rule that the mercury 
switch removal provisions and three compliance options apply to scrap 
that contains motor vehicle scrap. In addition, we have added a new 
provision to the rule for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle 
scrap to require a certification and documentation through records that 
the scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap.

[[Page 74101]]

    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement for facilities 
to submit a semiannual report of all scrap shipments received under the 
site-specific compliance option. The commenter recommended that EPA 
review scrap management records to determine compliance. The commenter 
provided recommended language for a semiannual report containing a 
certification of compliance, along with records of how each motor 
vehicle scrap provider, contract, or shipment complies with the rule.
    Response: We continue to believe that an accounting of mercury 
switches and estimated number of vehicles processed must be submitted 
in semiannual reports because it is an important monitoring provision 
that is necessary to determine if the site-specific plan is being 
implemented and to assess its effectiveness. However, we are clarifying 
that the information can be submitted in aggregate form and does not 
have to be submitted for each shipment, which could include hundreds of 
records for some large facilities. However, the owner or operator must 
maintain records for each motor vehicle scrap provider, contract, or 
shipment (as the commenter suggests) sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance with the rule and must make these records available upon the 
request of the permitting authority.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the scrap specification 
requirements for mercury switches make unrealistic and unenforceable 
demands of metal purchasers. The commenter notes that steel mill staff 
are required to assure that the scrap is clean by visiting suppliers 
(who may be hundreds of miles away) by doing visual inspection of their 
facilities and treated scrap. The commenter further notes that 
suppliers change frequently, they buy from middlemen, and they ship 
scrap from combined sources. The commenter believes this shifts 
responsibility of ``ensuring'' quality of scrap to the steelmakers and 
makes no requirements of the steelmakers themselves, but asks them to 
inspect members of an independent industry at large cost in staffing 
and travel when it is unlikely to be effective.
    Response: The rule applies to owners or operators of EAF 
steelmaking facilities, and it is the responsibility of these 
facilities to comply with the rule. Among other things, the final rule 
requires that EAF owners or operators conduct periodic inspections or 
provide other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are aware 
of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the 
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles. Periodic audits 
or inspections of scrap suppliers or dismantlers are one means of 
complying with this requirement. Although there are certainly other 
means to comply with this requirement, we note that periodic audits or 
inspections of scrap suppliers or dismantlers are consistent with the 
agreement reached in the NVMSRP among many stakeholders, including the 
scrap providers. Some EAF facilities already perform inspections of 
suppliers, and EAF facilities have historical experience in ensuring 
the quality of the scrap they receive because of safety concerns (e.g., 
radiation or explosion hazards) and the direct effect of scrap quality 
on steel quality.
    The corroboration requirement in the final rule, as described 
above, is an important element of assuring program effectiveness and 
achieving the pollution prevention objective of section 112(d)(2)(A). 
EPA is thus adopting the requirement as an exercise of independent 
judgment, not simply because it is in the agreement.

C. Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury

1. Opacity Limit for the Melt Shop
    Comment: Two commenters stated that a subcategory for older non-
NSPS facilities is justified by the fact that the non-NSPS status of 
these facilities has a direct bearing on the technical and economic 
feasibility of retrofitting to achieve the six percent opacity standard 
during charging and tapping. According to the commenters, these 
facilities, by virtue of their design, are of a different class and 
type from the NSPS facilities. The commenters concluded that the 
alternative standard described in the proposal preamble with an opacity 
standard of six percent and an allowance of 20 percent opacity during 
charging and tapping was appropriate for these non-NSPS facilities. The 
commenters provided a discussion of EPA's authority to establish such a 
subcategory and information they claimed indicated that EPA's estimates 
of the costs to retrofit the non-NSPS facilities was understated. The 
commenters also argued that applying the NSPS to the non-NSPS 
facilities was not justified because the proposed standard was not as 
cost effective as EPA had estimated, and in addition, the cost 
effectiveness for HAP was much higher than what EPA had determined to 
be unacceptable in other rulemakings.
    The commenters noted that CAA section 112 grants the EPA authority 
to categorize and subcategorize based on class, type, and size of 
source. According to the commenters, the Administrator ``may 
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 
category or subcategory'' under section 112(d)(l), and similarly, 
section 112(c) authorizes EPA to establish categories and subcategories 
of major and area sources in a manner that is consistent with the list 
of categories and subcategories under Section 111. The commenters also 
indicated that section 111(b)(2) provides EPA with authority to 
``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories,'' and 
section 112 further provides that ``(n)othing in the preceding sentence 
(referring to the desire to maintain consistency between source 
categories under Sections 111 and 112) limits the Administrator's 
authority to establish subcategories under this section, as 
appropriate.''
    The commenters pointed out that in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (72 FR 53826), EPA stated that it may be appropriate to consider a 
separate subcategory of facilities based on the technical and economic 
feasibility of retrofitting pre-1983 (non-NSPS) facilities. According 
to the commenters, such subcategorization is not new and falls within 
the Agency's discretion to create subcategories. The commenters 
continued by stating that while age is not specifically identified as a 
criterion for subcategorizing under Section 112, age may have a direct 
correlation to the design of a facility, the production and air 
pollution control equipment used by the facility, and other factors 
that allow for ``class, type, or size'' subcategory distinctions within 
an industry. The commenters stated that courts have confirmed this 
relationship between age and allowable subcategorization factors where 
there is a meaningful, discernable relationship between the age of the 
facility and the basis for subcategorization (e.g., the cost or 
feasibility of retrofitting or the effectiveness of anti-pollution 
devices on emissions) and cited American Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 
568 F.2d 244, 298 (3rd Cir. 1977) (``AISI'') (also cited by EPA in the 
preamble to the proposed rule). The commenters claimed that the courts 
have recognized that age may play a direct role in a facility's ability 
to install anti-pollution devices (i.e., retrofitting costs) and on the 
effectiveness of reducing emissions (citing American Iron and Steel 
Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1046, 1048 (3rd Cir. 1975) (also cited by EPA), 
recognizing the ``special problem'' in requiring a one-size-fits-all 
anti-pollution device in industries where there is considerable 
variation in the age of facilities).

[[Page 74102]]

    The commenters stated that they are not seeking subcategorization 
based strictly on the age of the facility, but rather to recognize that 
non-NSPS facilities (those that were constructed prior to 1983 and not 
subsequently modified) face design and equipment challenges in 
achieving the opacity standards that more modern facilities are 
engineered to meet. According to the commenters, non-NSPS facilities 
are a different ``class'' or ``type'' of facility from NSPS facilities, 
and consistent with the cases cited, the non-NSPS status of certain EAF 
steelmaking facilities bears directly on the technical and economic 
feasibility of reducing fugitive emissions and warrants a separate 
subcategory. The commenters claimed that non-NSPS facilities vary 
substantially in design and compliance requirements, but in almost all 
cases the buildings are not fully closed and the furnace design and 
emission capture systems are such that modifications are required to 
achieve the NSPS standards. According to the commenters, these design 
and equipment differences are reasonable bases on which to justify a 
non-NSPS subcategory.
    The commenters provided information concerning the modifications 
and retrofitting that would be required at the non-NSPS facilities to 
meet the six percent opacity limit. In addition, the commenters 
submitted estimates of the costs and identified additional non-NSPS 
facilities not previously included in EPA's analysis of impacts. The 
commenters noted that there are 11 non-NSPS facilities that cannot 
currently meet the NSPS opacity limit (rather than the six identified 
at proposal) and estimated that the capital cost to meet the standard 
as $85 to $99 million instead of EPA's estimate at proposal of $29 
million. Among the plants identified by the commenter was one plant 
that the commenter stated could meet the opacity limit 99 percent of 
the time, but the commenter claimed that costs would be incurred to 
address trivial and infrequent excursions to ensure the facility could 
meet the limit 100 percent of the time.
    The commenters stated that applying the NSPS opacity limit to the 
non-NSPS plants was less cost effective than EPA's estimates at 
proposal because costs were underestimated and emission reductions were 
overestimated. The commenters cited the higher capital costs described 
above and also stated that other costs, such as lost revenue due to 
downtime to perform upgrades and annual operating costs (including 
increased power consumption and maintenance labor) had not been 
included in EPA's estimates. In addition, the commenters claimed that 
EPA's estimates of emission reductions were overstated because some of 
the dust assumed to be collected by the improved capture system would 
have settled within the melt shop rather than being emitted as fugitive 
emissions through the melt shop roof. The commenter also stated that 
the improved capture efficiency estimated for three facilities (from 85 
percent to 95 percent) assumed an open roof monitor; however the 
improvement in capture is more likely from 90 percent to 95 percent 
because these facilities do not have open roofs. The commenter believes 
that the emission reductions for these facilities is about half of that 
estimated by EPA.
    The commenter also stated that EPA's cost effectiveness estimate of 
$160,000/ton of HAP was higher than what had been accepted in other 
rulemakings: $6,800/ton chlorine rejected and $1,100/ton chlorine 
accepted (hazardous waste combustors); $45,000/ton hydrogen chloride 
rejected (industrial boilers); $90,000/ton acrylonitrile rejected 
(acrylic and modacrylic fibers); $724 to $9,000/ton of organic HAP 
accepted (halogenated solvent cleaning); and $300 to $10,000/ton of 
organic HAP accepted (gasoline distribution). The commenters stated 
that it was inappropriate to compare the particulate matter (PM) cost 
effectiveness of the proposed rule with that of mobile source programs 
because those programs were geared towards addressing PM while the area 
source rule is focused on HAP emissions. The commenters believe the 
proper comparison is with respect to the cost effectiveness of HAP 
emission reductions as described above.
    Response: We proposed a standard of six percent opacity for the EAF 
melt shop for all plants in the source category (i.e., no 
subcategories) as GACT because about 90 percent of the existing 
facilities are subject to and achieve this level of control, and the 
technology used by these facilities is generally available. We 
requested comment on an alternative based on a subcategory for older 
facilities and an alternative standard of six percent opacity except 
for 20 percent opacity during charging and tapping (72 FR 53826). We 
also requested supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow 
characterization and representativeness of the data.
    The commenters claimed that there are meaningful differences 
between plants that are subject to the NSPS and those that are not 
subject to it, although they correctly acknowledged that age can only 
be a proxy for some process difference (i.e., age in and of itself is 
not a basis for subcategorization). However, we are not convinced that 
there is any basis for subcategorization because the non-NSPS plants 
have no physical differences that are impediments to the installation 
of the necessary and widely-demonstrated capture and control systems 
for fugitive emissions. Moreover, as we discuss in detail below, even 
if (against our view) it is appropriate to subcategorize, GACT would be 
the same for NSPS plants and non-NSPS plants.
    We stated at proposal that GACT for fugitive emissions from the 
melt shop includes hoods to capture the fugitive emissions escaping 
during charging, melting, and tapping, and ducting the emissions to a 
baghouse. All EAF facilities have capture and control systems for 
emissions from charging, melting, and tapping, and this technology has 
been applied to many other industries (e.g., iron and steel foundries, 
integrated iron and steel plants). However, most EAF steelmaking 
facilities have better capture systems for charging and tapping 
emissions than do some of the affected non-NSPS plants. We have 
identified no technical reason that the capture and control systems 
demonstrated by plants subject to the NSPS to achieve an opacity limit 
of six percent cannot be applied industry wide. The technology for 
upgrading the capture and control of emissions from charging and 
tapping is generally available and includes new or redesigned capture 
hoods, higher evacuation rates, and in some cases, additional baghouse 
capacity, all of which have been accounted for in our cost estimates.
    Not only is this type of technology routinely utilized, but there 
is no technical impediment to its applicability in this source 
category. The commenters stated that ``buildings are not fully closed 
and the furnace design and emission capture systems are such that 
modifications are required to achieve the NSPS standards'', but this 
merely indicates that some type of upgrade would be required for plants 
to meet the standards, not that these older plants cannot be physically 
enclosed so that they were able to achieve the NSPS opacity limit. 
Moreover, these sources' fugitive emissions consist of the same HAP in 
the same concentration as all of the NSPS plants. (See the HAP 
concentration data presented in ``Electric Arc Furnace Impacts 
Analysis'', Docket Item 0074 in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.) In 
addition, a number of pre-NSPS EAFs have in fact upgraded to meet a 6 
percent opacity limit. Not only are these

[[Page 74103]]

sources' fugitive emissions comparable to those of the remaining non-
upgraded facilities, but their costs are comparable as well, as are the 
cost effectiveness of the emission reductions. (See the results of the 
cost survey of plants that have previously upgraded as discussed in 
``Electric Arc Furnace Impacts Analysis'', Docket Item 0074 in Docket 
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.)
    EPA therefore does not believe that the remaining non-NSPS plants 
are of a different class or type than the universe of sources meeting 
the 6 percent opacity standard. They produce the same product by the 
same means, are capable of controlling opacity by the same means at the 
same effectiveness, appear to be identically situated to non-NSPS EAFs 
which meet the 6 percent standard, and (as discussed below) are capable 
of meeting that standard at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness.
    Moreover, even if (against our views) subcategorization would be 
appropriate, EPA believes GACT for the subcategory would be the NSPS 
standard. The standard reflects readily available technology (as just 
discussed) at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness. EPA carefully 
reviewed the detailed cost information submitted by the commenters for 
upgrading non-NSPS plants to meet the proposed opacity limit. The cost 
estimates are higher than those we developed at proposal reflecting 
that there are certain unique or site-specific factors for several 
plants that would result in costs higher than those we generated that 
did not include site-specific cost elements. We have accordingly 
revised the cost analysis from proposal and used the commenters' 
estimates of capital cost for most of the non-NSPS plants (using the 
average for those cases where a range of costs were provided for a 
given plant). We have also incorporated the commenters' estimates on 
the increased operating costs when they provided such estimates (e.g., 
increased consumption of electricity and labor for operation and 
maintenance). When estimates of operating cost were not provided, we 
developed estimates of operating costs for electricity, labor for 
operation and maintenance, and dust disposal based on the size of the 
upgraded system.
    We did not accept the commenters' full estimate of cost for one 
non-NSPS plant. The commenters provided a capital cost estimate of 
$30.5 million to replace the entire existing melt shop at this plant, 
including a new and larger EAF to replace two small ones, new EAF 
transformers, new cranes and other ancillary equipment, and other 
modifications. We disagree with this cost estimate because it is based 
on the cost for a new facility, including new process equipment, in 
addition to new capture and control equipment for emissions. For our 
revised impacts analysis, we estimated the cost for emission capture 
and control equipment only and used a capital cost of $16.3 million 
that the commenter attributed to a new baghouse and ancillary equipment 
associated with emission control; however, we note that it could be 
more economical to upgrade the existing baghouses, and the cost 
estimate of $16 million was based on an EAF steelmaking facility that 
was several times larger than this plant, making even this estimate 
highly conservative. (The estimated impacts, including the revised cost 
estimates, are documented in ``Revised Analysis of Impacts'' in the 
rulemaking docket.)
    We also reviewed the available information on costs associated with 
lost production when the upgrades are installed. Prior to proposal, we 
sent a detailed cost survey to several plants that had made substantial 
upgrades to improve the capture and control of fugitive emissions. One 
plant stated that the installation was performed as much as possible 
over a 1 year period during normal operations, the final tie-in of the 
control system to the EAF was made during a regularly-scheduled 
production outage of two weeks, and sufficient inventory was maintained 
to supply customers. A second plant also said that most of the 
installation was completed during normal operations, final tie-in was 
during two different scheduled outages of two weeks, and sufficient 
inventory was maintained to supply customers. A third plant replied 
that they could not provide a reliable estimate of any costs that might 
have been due to lost production during the installation. Based on the 
actual experience of plants that have made upgrades, we believe that 
significant costs due to lost production can be avoided by installation 
as much as possible during normal operation, final tie-in during a 
regularly-scheduled outage for maintenance, and building sufficient 
inventory to supply customers during the short period of production 
shutdown.
    The commenter identified one plant that could meet the opacity 
limit 99 percent of the time, but claimed that costs would be incurred 
to address trivial and infrequent excursions to ensure the facility 
could meet the limit 100 percent of the time. The commenter did not 
include any cost estimates for this plant in their estimates of total 
costs for meeting the opacity limit and only provided a qualitative 
discussion and capital cost estimates for the wholesale replacement of 
EAFs. The estimates provided by the commenter were for the capital cost 
of replacing EAFs, including in one case purchasing a used 20-ton EAF 
to replace existing furnaces with a capital cost of $4.2 million and in 
another case installing a new 40-ton furnace at a cost of over $70 
million. We requested several times but did not receive any opacity 
data showing whether this plant could or could not meet the opacity 
limit, and we do not think it appropriate to assume a new and larger 
EAF would need to be installed at a cost of many millions of dollars to 
address trivial and infrequent excursions even if they had occurred. 
Excursions that occur one percent of the time or less could well be 
outliers and a result of an equipment failure that is not preventable 
(i.e., a malfunction). Moreover, a rare excursion could be caused by a 
preventable equipment failure or operating error, in which case the 
event might be considered a deviation. If the excursion occurs because 
of a particular sequence or overlapping of cycles since this facility 
has multiple small furnaces, then careful attention to scheduling of 
operations might be a solution. In any event, the commenter and 
facility did not provide sufficient information, a credible cost 
estimate, or any opacity data; consequently, we do not have sufficient 
information to conclude that the facility would incur significant costs 
for upgrading.
    Our revised estimate of the cost for non-NSPS to meet the NSPS 
opacity limit is a capital cost of $69 million and a total annualized 
cost of $13 million per year. These costs average less than one percent 
of sales, will not affect the profit margin significantly, and will not 
cause plant closures. Consequently, the technology to meet the NSPS is 
economically feasible, which supports our view that the emission 
control technology is ``generally available.''
    We also re-examined our estimates of the emission reductions 
attributable to revised standards (the key input, along with cost, to 
assessing cost effectiveness). The commenters stated that for three 
plants, the reductions should be based on improving capture efficiency 
from 90 percent to 95 percent rather than the improvement of 85 percent 
to 95 percent that was used in our impacts analysis. We have 
acknowledged there is a great deal of uncertainty in this estimate; 
consequently, we have developed estimates of HAP metal (and PM, their 
surrogate) emission reductions using both ranges for improved capture 
efficiency. For plants that provided

[[Page 74104]]

evacuation rates, we estimated the emission reductions from the design 
evacuation rate and a PM concentration of 0.01 gr/dscf in the captured 
emissions. The commenters stated that they believed this estimate is 
high because some of the dust that is captured by the upgraded system 
would have settled out in the melt shop and not be emitted as fugitive 
emissions. However, the estimate of 0.01 gr/dscf is an unbiased average 
estimate that we believe is roughly accurate within a factor of two. We 
had information from one plant that indicated the concentration of 
fugitive emissions before control was 0.02 gr/dscf (a factor of two 
higher than our estimate). The lower end is bounded by 0.005 gr/dscf (a 
factor of two lower) because at that concentration a baghouse would not 
be needed to meet the PM emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf. 
Consequently, we did not revise this aspect of our estimates of 
emission reductions.
    After making the changes to the estimates of costs, emissions, and 
emission reductions described above, the cost effectiveness is $15,000/
ton for PM and $250,000/ton for HAP metals. As we stated at proposal, 
we believe the cost effectiveness for PM is well within the range of 
acceptability and is in line with the cost effectiveness for PM for 
other rules (72 FR 53826). We further noted at proposal that the cost 
effectiveness for PM is within the range we have accepted previously 
for control of PM emitted by mobile sources, and we continue to believe 
that these mobile source rules provide a reasonable benchmark for PM 
cost effectiveness.
    We also disagree with the commenters' assertions that the cost 
effectiveness for metal HAP is unacceptable. The final GACT standard 
for EAFs will provide reductions of 52 tons per year of compounds of 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, which are all urban HAP for 
which this category was listed pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 
112(k). EPA listed these metal compounds as urban HAP because of their 
significant adverse health effects. A large portion of the reductions 
of these urban HAP will occur in the urban areas that EPA identified in 
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. See CAA 112(k)(3)(C).
    The primary HAP emitted from melting iron and steel scrap are 
manganese and lead with smaller levels of chromium and nickel. These 
metals (especially manganese) are inherent components of the scrap that 
is melted, and at the high temperatures used in the EAFs, the HAP 
metals are unavoidably vaporized and emitted. These metal HAP are 
present in particulate matter emissions from the EAF, and because they 
are in particulate form, they can be captured and removed from the gas 
stream at high efficiency by control devices designed to capture 
particulate matter (such as baghouses). The nature of these emissions 
and the HAP composition are unique to iron and steel melting furnaces 
such as EAFs and are quite different from the emissions from other 
processes and operations that do not involve melting metal scrap at 
high temperatures.
    There are adverse health effects associated with the metal HAP 
emitted from EAFs. Hexavalent chromium and certain forms of nickel are 
known human carcinogens. Lead is toxic at low concentrations, and 
children are particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of lead. 
Chronic exposure to manganese affects the central nervous system. 
Additional details on the health and environmental effects of these HAP 
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. In 

addition, approximately 50 percent of the PM emissions are in the form 
of fine particulate matter, and EPA studies have found that fine 
particles continue to be a significant source of health risks in many 
urban areas.
    Accordingly, even considered as a separate subcategory, EPA 
believes that GACT for these sources would be the current NSPS 
standard, due to technical feasibility at reasonable cost and cost 
effectiveness.
    Furthermore, we have incorporated into this final rule certain 
provisions of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) that 
afford sources additional flexibility. For example, existing sources 
can request an additional year to comply with the standard if they can 
demonstrate to the permitting authority that such additional time is 
needed to install controls. See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A). In addition, 
EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 112(l) provide further 
flexibility. Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provides that a 
State may seek approval of permit terms and conditions that differ from 
those specified in a section 112 rule, if the State can demonstrate 
that the terms and conditions of the permit are equivalent to the 
requirements of this rule. The procedures for seeking approval of such 
a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR 63.94.
    Comment: One commenter noted the proposal requires that a capture 
system must collect ``gases and fumes,'' while a capture system is 
defined as collecting ``particulate matter.'' The commenter believes 
that neither of these terms is correct; the capture system should be 
described as capturing ``emissions'' generated from the EAF and other 
metallurgy operations.
    Response: We agree and have made this revision.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule identifies 
opacity standards for melt shops exclusive to EAF or ladle metallurgy 
operations (LMO) and no other sources. The commenter requested that the 
term ``melt shop'' be defined so that the applicability of the opacity 
standard is accurately applied. The commenter further claimed that the 
current requirement restricting the opacity standard to the operation 
of an EAF or LMO is unenforceable. The commenter said that based on 
States' experiences, many different operations occur within a melt 
shop, and without having at least one other person positioned within 
the building viewing all operations within, it would be impossible to 
know whether emissions observed outside of a building were associated 
with all the activities of a melt shop or solely the EAF or LMO. The 
commenter suggested removing the exclusivity of the opacity standard to 
EAF and LMO.
    Response: We disagree. The procedures for conducting opacity 
observations are the same as those in the NSPS, and these procedures 
have been used successfully for over 20 years to enforce the NSPS. In 
addition, our opacity data and GACT determination were based on the 
procedures for conducting opacity observations as required by the NSPS.
2. Ladle Metallurgy Operations
    Comment: Two commenters stated that LMO should not be covered by 
the EAF area source rule because it would be inconsistent with the area 
source listing of EAF steelmaking facilities (which does not mention 
LMO). The area source listing reflects the fact that EAF emissions are 
the source of the vast majority of PM (and potential HAP) emissions at 
these facilities. The commenters stated that coverage of LMO will 
require additional controls at many facilities to address minimal HAP 
emissions. The commenters claimed that EPA has not collected 
information on LMO emissions or the cost of controlling them and also 
noted that LMO is not covered by the NSPS. The commenters claim that 
HAP metals have been removed from the steel in the EAF by the time it 
reaches the post processing stage of the LMO. The commenters indicated 
that there are 12 facilities with a separate LMO baghouse (i.e., not 
ducted to the baghouse associated with the EAF), seven with the LMO 
located in a separate building,

[[Page 74105]]

and six facilities that stated LMO fugitive emissions are separate from 
EAF melt shop emissions. The commenters stated that these facilities 
will need to take steps to ensure they can meet the NSPS limits. One 
commenter also stated that argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels 
should not be covered by the area source rule for the same reasons 
given above for LMO (except that AOD vessels are covered by the NSPS). 
The commenter provided no information similar to that provided for LMO 
on AOD vessels with separate baghouses or located in separate 
buildings.
    Another commenter requested that EPA clarify that LMO is not 
covered by the standard or, if it is subject to the standard, which it 
complies if it is equipped with a side draft hood or close fitting hood 
even if there is no additional canopy collection.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the area source listing 
and 1990 emissions inventory for EAFs did not include LMO. The PM 
emissions from LMO are a small percentage of the emissions from EAF 
operations, and as the commenters note, the percent HAP in the PM from 
LMO is lower than that from EAFs because the more volatile HAP metals 
are removed during the EAF melting process. Consequently, we are 
clarifying that the area source rule applies only to EAFs and AOD 
vessels.
    We disagree with the one commenter who suggested that AOD vessels 
also should not be covered by the area source standard for many of the 
same reasons that were applied to LMO. Although the use of LMO was not 
very widespread in 1990, AOD vessels have been used at specialty and 
stainless steel facilities for many years. In fact, AOD vessels were 
included in the 1983 NSPS, and we included AOD vessels in our GACT 
determination for EAF steelmaking facilities. Many AOD operations are 
vented to and controlled by the same baghouses that are used to control 
EAF emissions; consequently, the 1990 emissions inventory would have 
included AOD emissions even when the emission source was identified as 
the EAF. Thus when we listed the EAF steelmaking area source category 
under section 112(c)(3), we considered and included facilities with AOD 
emissions as part of the source category that we needed to meet the 90 
percent requirement for emissions of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. The comments with respect to HAP 
metals are also not applicable to AOD vessels because AOD emissions 
contain high percentages of chromium and nickel, which are alloys used 
in making specialty and stainless steel.
    We evaluated the impacts of including AOD vessels in the proposed 
area source standard. We identified only one plant that did not control 
AOD vessels with a baghouse, and we estimated the cost of replacing the 
wet scrubber with a baghouse. For this plant, both the EAF and AOD 
vessels are vented to a single wet scrubber; consequently, our cost 
estimate was based on a baghouse designed to control emissions from 
both operations. We evaluated the cost and cost effectiveness for this 
plant at proposal in our determination of GACT for small stainless 
steel producers (72 FR 53827). The commenter did not identify any 
additional plants that did not have a baghouse for the AOD vessel, and 
the commenter provided no data or other information showing that any 
other AOD vessels could not meet the proposed emission limits. 
Consequently, we believe that we have adequately evaluated the 
potential impacts of the proposed rule on AOD vessels and conclude that 
the NSPS limits for AOD vessels represent GACT for these vessels at 
carbon steel and large specialty steel facilities.
3. Small Stainless Steel Subcategory
    Comment: One commenter submitted two comments on the subcategory 
for small stainless steel producers. The commenter asked if the 150,000 
tons per year threshold applies to actual production or to potential 
facility production capacity. The commenter also asked that facilities 
in this subcategory be given the option of complying with the more 
stringent emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf that was proposed for other 
EAF facilities. The commenter stated that some facilities in the 
subcategory already have this limit in their permit and that they 
should not be required to demonstrate compliance with the 0.8 pounds 
per ton (lb/ton) limit as well. The commenter also claimed that without 
the option of complying with the 0.0052 gr/dscf limit, small facilities 
might be discouraged from upgrading pollution control equipment because 
the permitting authority could translate the lb/ton limit into a 
concentration limit more stringent than 0.0052 gr/dscf.
    One commenter stated that the 0.8 lb/ton limit should not be 
applied to baghouses because a concentration limit in gr/dscf is more 
appropriate for baghouses. The commenter said that PM emissions from a 
baghouse are not linearly related to steel production rates. The 
commenter asks that EPA clarify that the lb/ton limit applies only to 
wet scrubbers.
    Another commenter recommended that the PM limit for the small 
stainless steel subcategory be expressed in grain loading or similar 
fashion per industry practice instead of a lb/ton format. The commenter 
explained that it is not possible to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the lb/ton format because not all particulate matter is released 
at the same time (i.e., the control device may continue to release PM 
after the end of a production run). The commenter stated that the 
testing provisions do not fully address this problem.
    Response: The threshold for small stainless steel facilities is 
based on potential production as determined from the operating capacity 
of the EAF in tons per year multiplied by the maximum number of 
operating hours per year. We are clarifying that the potential 
production can be based on the maximum production or maximum number of 
permitted operating hours if specified in the facility's operating 
permit. Otherwise, the potential production would be based on the EAF 
production capacity and maximum operating hours.
    We agree with the commenters that facilities in the small stainless 
steel subcategory that are equipped with baghouses should be allowed to 
demonstrate compliance exclusively with the more stringent PM of 0.0052 
gr/dscf rather than 0.8 lb/ton as well for several reasons. There are 
existing plants equipped with baghouses that already must meet the more 
stringent PM limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf; consequently, requiring them to 
also demonstrate compliance with the less stringent limit is 
unnecessarily burdensome. We also agree that a concentration format is 
more appropriate for baghouses because baghouses are typically designed 
to meet an outlet concentration expressed in gr/dscf. On the other 
hand, wet scrubbers are typically designed to achieve a percent 
reduction in PM, and emissions are more relatable to steel production 
(i.e., higher steel production rates result in higher inlet loadings, 
which usually results in higher emissions at the outlet for wet 
scrubbers). The test procedures are clear for determining compliance 
with the lb/ton limit, and the plant with the wet scrubber has 
previously determined emissions in this format; consequently, we are 
not revising the testing provisions.

[[Page 74106]]

4. Particulate Matter Limit for EAFs
    Comment: One commenter identified a plant that was not included in 
the analysis of impacts at proposal. The commenter stated that the 
facility could meet the opacity limit of six percent; however, 
compliance with the PM emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf will require 
upgrades to the baghouse, and other modifications will be required. The 
commenter estimated the capital cost for the upgrades as $1.9 million.
    Response: We have evaluated the commenter's estimated cost for 
upgrades in our revised analysis of impacts. However, it is not clear 
that these costs should be attributed entirely to the area source 
standard. Our discussion with plant representatives prior to proposal 
indicated that a performance test showed that the baghouse achieved 
0.0052 gr/dscf or less. In addition, bag replacement is a typical and 
recurring maintenance expense for baghouses, and bags would be replaced 
periodically even in the absence of the area source standard. Assuming 
the new bags and other modifications achieve a nominal reduction of 
only 0.001 gr/dscf, the improvements are cost effective and reasonable 
for reductions in PM emissions ($5,100/ton). Since this is the only 
plant in the subcategory that might be impacted by the PM emission 
limit, the estimate of cost effectiveness also represents the industry-
wide estimate of cost effectiveness. (All estimates of impacts of the 
final standard are documented in the rulemaking docket.)
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the PM limit should be based 
on the average performance of the best performing 12 percent of sources 
(i.e., the MACT floor).
    Response: We discussed in detail in the proposal preamble (72 FR 
53816) that the standard is based on GACT rather than MACT for Urban 
HAP other than mercury. The methodology suggested is the MACT 
methodology for establishing floors, which is neither required nor 
appropriate in determining what constitutes GACT.

D. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap To Control HAP Other Than Mercury

    Comment: One commenter objected to the definition of ``free organic 
liquid'' for turnings and borings because most turnings and borings 
contain significant quantities of oil. The commenter recommended that 
the prohibition on free organic liquids not include metal working 
fluids that contain less than one percent chlorinated compounds or less 
than 0.1 percent of a carcinogen. The commenter explained that this 
change would allow the majority of turning and borings to be recycled 
while avoiding possible emissions of chlorinated compounds.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter because this provision is 
designed to prevent significant amounts of oil or other free organic 
liquids from entering the EAF with the scrap. These organic liquids 
contribute to the emissions of organic HAP such as benzene and 
polycyclic organic matter.
    Comment: One commenter asks EPA to clarify the meaning of taking 
corrective action under Sec.  63.10685(a)(1)(iii), which requires the 
facility to include in the scrap management plan procedures for 
``taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not within 
specifications.'' The commenter asked to what extent a scrap provider 
has any recourse when corrective actions are deemed necessary.
    Response: The procedures for taking corrective actions must be 
described by the EAF owner or operator in the site-specific pollution 
prevention plan and these procedures may vary depending on the type of 
scrap, scrap provider, and other factors, some of which may be unique 
to the facility. The concept is not a new one because EAF owners or 
operators have historically taken corrective actions when scrap does 
not meet their specifications. The area source rule places no direct 
requirements on the scrap provider; however, we expect that the scrap 
provider would work with customers (the EAF owners or operators) to 
resolve any questions of recourse with respect to corrective actions.
    Comment: Several commenters believe the following proposed language 
creates a potential loophole for sources to charge otherwise 
unacceptable materials: ``The requirements for a pollution prevention 
plan do not apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags and other 
internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace.'' These 
commenters believe the language presents a loophole that renders the 
pollution prevention plan unenforceable and should be removed. One 
commenter suggests these exemptions not be allowed unless specifically 
identified in the pollution prevention plan and approved by the 
Administrator. Two commenters noted that under the proposed language, 
if an inspector found chlorinated plastics, lead or free organic 
liquids in an EAF's feedstock, the inspector would need to demonstrate 
that these wastes did not stem from ``internal process materials or 
maintenance materials.''
    Response: The final rule, like the proposal, allows certain 
materials generated internally (e.g., baghouse bags) to be charged to 
the EAF. We agree that these materials should be identified and 
described in the facility's pollution prevention plan, and this is 
reflected in the final rule language. These materials are only those 
that are generated internally; consequently, they cannot be used as a 
loophole for incoming scrap. The inspector should be aware that the 
presence of chlorinated plastics, lead, or free organic liquids in 
these internal process materials or maintenance materials should be 
relatively rare, and if present, only exist in small quantities and 
only as described in the site-specific pollution prevention plan.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the metallic scrap restrictions 
are vague, difficult, and practically unenforceable. The commenter 
requests that EPA either define the terms ``to the extent practicable'' 
and ``standard industry practice'', set a particular standard, or make 
the requirements voluntary. Another commenter asked what the term ``to 
the extent practicable'' means in practice, and if there is no 
definition, how can the compliance provisions lead to corrective 
actions.
    Response: 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 deleting the term in the 
final rule and continue to use the term ``to the extent practicable'' 
as it relates to the removal of lead-containing components such as 
batteries and wheel weights.

E. Miscellaneous Comments

1. General Provisions
    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement for SSM plans 
and reports because the burden of the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are not commensurate with the small quantity of pollutants 
covered by the rule. If SSM plans are required in the final rule, the 
commenter recommended that the plan requirements be limited to the 
operation of the EAF and LMO and associated control devices. The 
commenter was concerned that the SSM requirements could be read to 
apply to problems with the pollution prevention plans. The commenter 
recommended that Table 1

[[Page 74107]]

to Subpart YYYYY should indicate the limitation of the SSM 
requirements.
    Response: We agree that the SSM requirements do not apply to the 
pollution prevention plans. Sources must comply with the pollution 
prevention plans at all times, including periods of SSM. Therefore, 
separate requirements governing SSM are not necessary.
    Comment: One commenter stated that because the rule requires 
compliance with the compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) provisions, 
Table 1 to subpart YYYYY should indicate that the monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  63.8(a) through (c) of the general provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A) apply only if a continuous opacity monitoring 
system or continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is used.
    Response: We agree and will make this clarification.
2. Compliance Date
    Comment: Two commenters requested that three years be allowed for 
non-NSPS facilities to install or modify controls to meet the opacity 
limit. The commenters stated that a series of events must occur to 
improve controls: Conceptual and detailed engineering studies must be 
conducted to determine what is needed to achieve compliance, a budget 
must be established and capital funding requests initiated and approved 
by company management, the project must be contracted out (after a 
competitive bidding process), necessary building permits obtained, and 
construction initiated. The commenters asked that EPA provide for the 
full three-year compliance period allowed under the CAA in order to 
avoid a proliferation of extension requests.
    Response: We recognize that certain facilities will require 
extensive upgrades, including new capture systems, new baghouses, and 
site-specific modifications to improve control of fugitive emissions 
and meet the melt shop opacity limit. Consequently, we agree that it is 
appropriate to allow up to three years to achieve compliance for those 
facilities that demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting 
authority that additional time is needed to install or modify emission 
control equipment to meet the opacity limit.
3. Title V Permit
    Comment: One commenter stated that the title V permit program is 
for major sources of criteria pollutants or HAP. The commenter stated 
that there was one small specialty steel EAF facility that was not a 
major source for any pollutant and that the facility has a State permit 
that caps emissions below major source thresholds. The commenter asked 
that the proposed rule be revised to require a title V permit only for 
those facilities that are major sources.
    Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA requires sources subject to 
regulation under section 112 of the CAA to obtain a permit to operate. 
However, Section 502(a) authorizes the Administrator, in his 
discretion, to ``promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source 
categories (in whole or in part) from the requirement of (title V) if 
the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories * * * .'' EPA promulgated a rule interpreting section 502(a) 
and therein stated that EPA may only exempt a category from Title V 
permitting if we find compliance to be ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome,'' and we determine that exempting the 
category would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment. (See 70 FR 75,320 and 75,323, December 19, 2005.) Nowhere 
in our rule did we establish a presumption in favor of exempting 
sources from title V permitting, and the statute leaves such 
determinations to the discretion of the Administrator.
    The decision to exempt a source category from title V requirements 
is made on a case-by-case basis according to the facts of the 
particular source category. The commenter has identified one EAF 
steelmaking facility (in a population of over 90 facilities) that does 
not currently have a title V permit. The commenter does not explain, 
however, why an exemption from title V is appropriate for this source 
category, where, as here, 99 percent of the facilities in the source 
category have title V permits. We refer the commenter to the detailed 
justification underlying exemption of other area source categories from 
title V. (For example, see 72 FR 38871, July 16, 2007.) We continue to 
believe that title V permitting is necessary for this source category. 
The record in this case does not demonstrate that compliance with title 
V permitting would be impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 
burdensome for the sources in this category.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  63.106890(d) should be 
revised because the language could have the unintended consequence of 
forcing facilities that already have a title V permit to obtain a new 
permit. The commenter provided suggested language to clarify the 
requirement.
    Response: Although facilities with a title V permit do not have to 
obtain a new title V permit as a result of this area source rule, 
sources that already have a title V permit 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. See 40 CFR 70.7(f).
4. Performance Tests
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the provision allowing use 
of a previous performance test to demonstrate compliance be revised to 
include a time frame for action by the permitting authority. The 
commenter expressed concern that the facility may be exposed to a 
compliance risk if the source submits a test and the permitting 
authority deems the prior test unacceptable. The commenter was 
concerned that the requirement to test within 180 days of the 
compliance date would not be adequate if permitting authority has 
delayed action on the source's notification of compliance status 
report. The commenter provided rule language that would require that 
the prior test be deemed approved if not deemed unacceptable within 60 
days.
    Response: We agree that in the rare event that a permitting 
authority takes months to deem that a prior test is unacceptable, there 
may not be sufficient time to arrange and conduct a performance test 
within 180 days of the compliance date. We are revising the provision 
in the rule to state that if a permitting authority determines a prior 
performance test is unacceptable to demonstrate compliance, a 
performance test must be performed with 180 days of the compliance date 
or within 90 days of receipt of the notification of disapproval of the 
prior test, whichever is later.
5. Funding for State and Local Agencies
    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

[[Page 74108]]

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 EAF Steelmaking area 
source category that reflect what constitutes MACT for mercury 
emissions and GACT for the Urban HAP other than mercury for which the 
source category was listed. MACT and 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 or MACT. Moreover, we note that the rule for EAF 
steelmaking facilities requires all affected facilities to have a title 
V permit; consequently, the comment about loss of fees from title V 
permit exemptions is not pertinent for this rule.
    Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through today's 
rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to 
working with State and local agencies to implement this rule. State and 
local agencies that receive grants for continuing air programs under 
CAA section 105 should work with their project officer to determine 
what resources are necessary to implement and enforce the area source 
standards. EPA will continue to provide the resources appropriated for 
section 105 grants consistent with the statute and the allotment 
formula developed pursuant to the statute.
6. Secondary Nonferrous Metal Production
    Comment: One commenter asked that EPA clarify that the rule does 
not apply to EAFs that are used to 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.)

V. Impacts of the Final Rule

    We estimate that the final standards will reduce mercury emissions 
from EAF by an estimated 5 tons per year (tpy) and will reduce 
emissions of other metallic HAP (primarily manganese with some lead, 
nickel and chromium) by about 52 tpy. Emissions of PM will be reduced 
by 865 tpy.
    The capital cost of the final standards is estimated as $69 
million. The total annualized cost of the final rule is estimated at 
$13 million/yr, including the annualized cost of capital and the annual 
operating costs for emissions control systems. The additional cost of 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping attributable to the final 
rule, including the preparation of scrap management plans and scrap 
specifications, is estimated as $122,000 per year. No adverse economic 
impacts are expected for large or small entities. Secondary impacts 
will include an increase in the generation of hazardous waste (865 tpy) 
and an increase in electricity usage (23,000 megawatt-hours per year) 
from additional fans and fan capacity associated with baghouse 
installations and upgrades to meet the opacity standard.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards, and the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements in the part 64 CAM rule, which are based on 
the requirements in the operating permits rule (40 CFR parts 70 and 
71). These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B.
    The final rule requires all facilities to submit a one-time 
notification of applicability and notification of compliance status 
required by the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 
The notification of compliance status must include compliance 
certifications for various rule requirements. The general provisions 
also require preparation of a test plan for performance tests and 
advance notification of the date the performance test is to be 
conducted.
    The provisions for the control of contaminants from scrap require 
the owner or operator to prepare a pollution prevention plan to 
minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic 
liquids that are charged to the furnace and to submit the plan to the 
Administrator for approval. Facilities must keep the plan onsite and 
train certain employees in the plan's requirements. Alternatively, the 
facility must restrict the type of scrap charged to the furnace. For 
mercury, facilities must prepare a site-specific plan for removal of 
mercury switches, submit the plan to the Administrator for approval, 
and submit semiannual progress reports containing information on the 
mercury switches that have been removed would also be required. 
Alternatively, facilities must purchase motor vehicle scrap only from 
suppliers that participate in an approved program for the removal of 
mercury switches or recover only material for its specialty alloy 
content that does not contain mercury switches. Facilities are required 
to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the selected option. 
Records of specific information are required for plants electing to 
comply with the site-specific plan for mercury; semiannual progress 
reports are also required.
    All area source facilities are required to conduct performance 
tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable PM and 
opacity limits. Existing facilities are allowed to certify initial 
compliance based on the results of a previous performance test that 
meets the rule requirements. All facilities must monitor capture 
systems and PM control devices for EAF and AOD vessels, maintain 
records, and submit reports according to the part 64 CAM requirements. 
These reports

[[Page 74109]]

include deviation reports, semiannual monitoring reports, and annual 
compliance certifications.
    Consistent with Sec.  63.6(e) of the general provisions, all plants 
are required to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, and make an immediate report if a startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction was not consistent with their plan. Plants also must 
keep records and make semiannual reports according to the requirements 
in Sec.  63.10.
    The annual average monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden 
for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR) is 
estimated to total 2,393 labor hours per year at a cost of $121,573. 
This includes 2.7 responses per year from each of 91 respondents for an 
average of about 9.7 hours per response. There are no additional 
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated 
with the final rule.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (whose parent company has fewer than 1,000 
employees for NAICS code 331111); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of 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. The small 
entities directly regulated by this final rule are approximately nine 
EAF steelmaking facilities owned by small businesses. We have 
determined that the requirements for these small business owned 
facilities consist of preparing a scrap selection plan or mercury 
switch removal plan and maintaining records to document compliance with 
these requirements. The requirements of the part 63 General Provisions 
include notifications, records, semiannual reports, and a startup, 
shutdown and malfunction plan. The information required in these 
information collection requirements is very similar to the information 
collection requirements in 40 CFR parts 64, 70, and 71. We have 
determined that the nine or fewer EAF steelmaking facilities (less than 
10 percent of the total number of facilities) will experience an impact 
of about $3,500 per year per facility, which is less than one percent 
of total revenues.
    Electric arc furnaces and AOD vessels at all EAF steelmaking 
facilities that are area sources are already equipped with capture 
systems and control devices. We have identified ten plants that may 
have to upgrade emission capture and control systems at a total capital 
cost of $69 million and a total annualized cost of $13 million per 
year. However, none of these plants are owned by small businesses.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We held 
meetings with industry trade associations and company representatives 
to discuss the proposed rule and have included provisions such as the 
lb/ton limit for small facilities that address their concerns. We have 
also included a subcategory based partially on facility size that 
allows more individualized consideration of EAFs in the subcategory, 
which include small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

[[Page 74110]]

the UMRA. EPA has determined that this final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. In addition, the final rule is not subject to 
section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' 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. The final rule does not impose 
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to the final rule.

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13045 (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 Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject 
to the Executive Order because it is based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 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. The VCS are 
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and 
applicable VCS.
    This final rule involves technical standards. EPA cites the 
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 
3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Method 9095B, 
``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2, November 2004) 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14); and ASTM D2216-05, 
``Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water 
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14).
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for 
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, 9095B, or ASTM D2216-05. The 
search and review results are in the docket for this final rule.
    One VCS was identified as applicable to this final rule. The 
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is 
cited in this final rule for its manual method for measuring the 
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. 
This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 3B.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other 
VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for 
measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions 
standards in this final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test 
methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for 
this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are 
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for this final rule.
    For the methods required or referenced by this final rule, a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under Sec.  63.7(f) 
and Sec.  63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.

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

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

[[Page 74111]]

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any 
minority or low-income population. This final rule establishes national 
standards for the area source category.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this 
final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on December 28, 
2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 14, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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 as follows:
0
a. By adding paragraph (b)(63);
0
b. By revising paragraph (i)(1); and
0
c. By adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv).


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (63) ASTM D2216-05, ``Standard Test Methods for Laboratory 
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass,'' 
IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic liquids'' in Sec.  
63.10692.
* * * * *
    (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), 63.10686(d)(1(iii), 63.10702, 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), and Table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' revision 2, 
November 2004, IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic 
liquids'' in Sec.  63.10692.
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYY to read as follows:

Subpart YYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking 
Facilities

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.10681 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.10685 What are the requirements for the control of contaminants 
from scrap?
63.10686 What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and 
argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?

Other Information and Requirements

63.10690 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.10691 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.10692 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart YYYYY

Subpart YYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking 
Facilities

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.10680  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an 
electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility that is an area source 
of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each EAF steelmaking facility.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or before September 20, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after September 20, 2007.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart, 
you must have or obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 
71.


Sec.  63.10681  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if you own 
or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance 
with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later than June 
30, 2008.
    (b) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with opacity limit in Sec.  63.10686(b)(2) or (c)(2) 
by no later than December 28, 2010 if you demonstrate to the 
satisfaction of the permitting authority that additional time is needed 
to install or modify emission control equipment.
    (c) If you start up a new affected source on or before December 28, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 
this subpart by no later than December 28, 2007.
    (d) If you start up a new affected source after December 28, 2007, 
you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this 
subpart upon startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.10685  What are the requirements for the control of 
contaminants from scrap?

    (a) Chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids. For 
metallic scrap utilized in the EAF at your facility, you must comply 
with the requirements in

[[Page 74112]]

either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. You may have certain 
scrap at your facility subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 
other scrap subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section provided the 
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
    (1) Pollution prevention plan. For the production of steel other 
than leaded steel, you must prepare and implement a pollution 
prevention plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection to minimize 
the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids that 
is charged to the furnace. For the production of leaded steel, you must 
prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan for scrap selection 
and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics and free 
organic liquids in the scrap that is charged to the furnace. You must 
submit the scrap pollution prevention plan to the permitting authority 
for approval. You must operate according to the plan as submitted 
during the review and approval process, operate according to the 
approved plan at all times after approval, and address any deficiency 
identified by the permitting authority within 60 days following 
disapproval of a plan. You may request approval to revise the plan and 
may operate according to the revised plan unless and until the revision 
is disapproved by the permitting authority. You must keep a copy of the 
plan onsite, and you must provide training on the plan's requirements 
to all plant personnel with materials acquisition or inspection duties. 
Each plan must include the information in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through 
(iii) of this section:
    (i) Specifications that scrap materials must be depleted (to the 
extent practicable) of undrained used oil filters, chlorinated 
plastics, and free organic liquids at the time of charging to the 
furnace.
    (ii) A requirement in your scrap specifications for removal (to the 
extent practicable) of lead-containing components (such as batteries, 
battery cables, and wheel weights) from the scrap, except for scrap 
used to produce leaded steel.
    (iii) Procedures for determining if the requirements and 
specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are met (such as 
visual inspection or periodic audits of scrap providers) and procedures 
for taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not 
within specifications.
    (iv) The requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not 
apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags or other internal 
process or maintenance materials in the furnace. These exempted 
materials must be identified in the pollution prevention plan.
    (2) Restricted metallic scrap. For the production of steel other 
than leaded steel, you must not charge to a furnace metallic scrap that 
contains scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, 
oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers or capacitors 
containing polychlorinated biphenyls, lead-containing components, 
chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. For the production of 
leaded steel, you must not charge to the furnace metallic scrap that 
contains scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, 
oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers or capacitors 
containing polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated plastics, or free 
organic liquids. This restriction does not apply to any post-consumer 
engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily turnings that are 
processed or cleaned to the extent practicable such that the materials 
do not include lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free organic 
liquids. This restriction does not apply to motor vehicle scrap that is 
charged to recover the chromium or nickel content if you meet the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (b) Mercury requirements. For scrap containing motor vehicle scrap, 
you must procure the scrap pursuant to one of the compliance options in 
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each scrap provider, 
contract, or shipment. For scrap that does not contain motor vehicle 
scrap, you must procure the scrap pursuant to the requirements in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section for each scrap provider, contract, or 
shipment. You may have one scrap provider, contract, or shipment 
subject to one compliance provision and others subject to another 
compliance provision.
    (1) Site-specific plan for mercury switches. You must comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) You must include a requirement in your scrap specifications for 
removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap.
    (ii) You must prepare and operate according to a plan demonstrating 
how your facility will implement the scrap specification in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section for removal of mercury switches. You must 
submit the plan to the permitting authority for approval. You must 
operate according to this plan as submitted during the review and 
approval process, operate according to the approved plan at all times 
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the permitting 
authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan. You may 
request approval to revise the plan and may operate according to the 
revised plan unless and until the revision is disapproved by the 
permitting authority. The permitting authority may change the approval 
status of the plan upon 90-days written notice based upon the 
semiannual compliance report or other information. The plan must 
include:
    (A) A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap 
providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which 
mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper 
management of the mercury switches removed from that scrap as required 
under the rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The 
plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to 
communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to 
promote the removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon 
the request of the permitting authority, you must provide examples of 
materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, 
contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection 
protocols;
    (B) Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that 
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meet the scrap 
specification;
    (C) Provisions for periodic inspections or other means of 
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are 
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury 
switches in motor vehicle scrap and that the mercury switches removed 
are being properly managed, including the minimum frequency such means 
of corroboration will be implemented; and
    (D) Provisions for taking corrective actions (i.e., actions 
resulting in scrap providers removing a higher percentage of mercury 
switches or other mercury-containing components) if needed, based on 
the results of procedures implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of 
this section).
    (iii) You must require each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide 
an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor 
vehicle scrap sent to your facility during the previous year and the 
basis for the estimate. The permitting authority may request 
documentation or additional information at any time.
    (iv) You must establish a goal for each scrap provider to remove at 
least 80 percent of the mercury switches.

[[Page 74113]]

Although a site-specific plan approved under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section may require only the removal of convenience light switch 
mechanisms, the permitting authority will credit all documented and 
verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle 
scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, 
active ride control, and other applications) when evaluating progress 
towards the 80 percent goal.
    (v) For each scrap provider, you must submit semiannual progress 
reports to the permitting authority that provide the number of mercury 
switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, 
the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent 
of mercury switches removed, and certification that the removed mercury 
switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise 
properly managed pursuant to RCRA subtitle C regulations referenced in 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. This information can be 
submitted in aggregated form and does not have to be submitted for each 
scrap provider, contract, or shipment. The permitting authority may 
change the approval status of a site-specific plan following 90-days 
notice based on the progress reports or other information.
    (2) Option for approved mercury programs. You must certify in your 
notification of compliance status that you participate in and purchase 
motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a 
program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the 
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. If you purchase motor vehicle scrap from a 
broker, you must certify that all scrap received from that broker was 
obtained from other scrap providers who participate in a program for 
the removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the 
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery 
Program and the Vehicle Switch Recovery Program mandated by Maine State 
law are EPA-approved programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
unless and until the Administrator disapproves the program (in part or 
in whole) under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) The program includes outreach that informs the dismantlers of 
the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and 
guidance for removing mercury switches;
    (ii) The program has a goal to remove at least 80 percent of 
mercury switches from the motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider 
processes. Although a program approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section may require only the removal of convenience light switch 
mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable 
mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as 
sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride 
control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the 
80 percent goal; and
    (iii) The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the 
Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the 
number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered 
from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an 
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and 
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at 
facilities with permits as required under the rules implementing 
subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The progress 
reports must be based on a database that includes data for each program 
participant; however, data may be aggregated at the State level for 
progress reports that will be publicly available. The Administrator may 
change the approval status of a program or portion of a program (e.g., 
at the State level) following 90-days notice based on the progress 
reports or on other information.
    (iv) You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the 
manner through which your facility is participating in the EPA-approved 
program.
    (A) The plan must include facility-specific implementation 
elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a 
trade association as appropriate for each facility.
    (B) You must provide in the plan documentation of direction to 
appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap 
supply chain the need to promote the removal of mercury switches from 
end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the permitting authority, you 
must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach to 
suppliers, such as letters, contract language, policies for purchasing 
agents, and scrap inspection protocols.
    (C) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of 
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware of the need for 
and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of 
mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
    (3) Option for specialty metal scrap. You must certify in your 
notification of compliance status that the only materials from motor 
vehicles in the scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy 
(including, but not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other 
alloys) content (such as certain exhaust systems) and, based on the 
nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, that the type of scrap 
is not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.
    (4) Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. For scrap not 
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section, you must certify in your notification of compliance status and 
maintain records of documentation that this scrap does not contain 
motor vehicle scrap.
    (c) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition to the 
records required by Sec.  63.10, you must keep records to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements for your pollution prevention plan in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and/or for the use of only restricted 
scrap in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and for mercury in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section as applicable. You must keep records 
documenting compliance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section for scrap 
that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
    (1) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan 
for mercury under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must:
    (i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or 
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, 
the estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the 
percent of mercury switches recovered; and
    (ii) Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches 
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and 
properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an 
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a 
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at 
RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a 
certification that you have conducted inspections or taken other means 
of corroboration as required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this 
section. You may include this information in the semiannual compliance 
reports required under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (2) If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs 
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must maintain records 
identifying each

[[Page 74114]]

scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in an 
approved mercury switch removal program. If you purchase motor vehicle 
scrap from a broker, you must maintain records identifying each broker 
and documentation that all scrap provided by the broker was obtained 
from other scrap providers who participate in an approved mercury 
switch removal program.
    (3) You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the 
Administrator for the control of contaminants from scrap according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.10(e). The report must clearly identify 
any deviation from the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section and the corrective action taken. You must identify which 
compliance option in paragraph (b) of this section applies to each 
scrap provider, contract, or shipment.


Sec.  63.10686  What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and 
argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture system that 
collects the emissions from each EAF (including charging, melting, and 
tapping operations) and argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel and 
conveys the collected emissions to a control device for the removal of 
particulate matter (PM).
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 
not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or 
AOD vessel any gases which:
    (1) Exit from a control device and contain in excess of 0.0052 
grains of PM per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and
    (2) Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any 
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
    (c) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that 
has a production capacity of less than 150,000 tons per year (tpy) of 
stainless or specialty steel (as determined by the maximum production 
if specified in the source's operating permit or EAF capacity and 
maximum number of operating hours per year), you must not discharge or 
cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or AOD vessel any 
gases which:
    (1) Exit from a control device and contain particulate matter (PM) 
in excess of 0.8 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of steel. Alternatively, the 
owner or operator may elect to comply with a PM limit of 0.0052 grains 
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and
    (2) Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any 
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, you 
must conduct performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with 
the applicable emissions limit for each emissions source subject to an 
emissions limit in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct each PM performance test for an EAF or AOD 
vessel according to the procedures in Sec.  63.7 and 40 CFR 60.275a 
using the following test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1, A-
2, A-3, and A-4:
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select 
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack 
or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control 
device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no control device 
is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 
60 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 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 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the 
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
the PM concentration. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a PM 
performance test. For EAF, sample only when metal is being melted and 
refined. For AOD vessels, sample only when the operation(s) are being 
conducted.
    (2) You must conduct each opacity test for a melt shop according to 
the procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) and Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR 
part 60. When emissions from any EAF or AOD vessel are combined with 
emissions from emission sources not subject to this subpart, you must 
demonstrate compliance with the melt shop opacity limit based on 
emissions from only the emission sources subject to this subpart.
    (3) During any performance test, you must monitor and record the 
information specified in 40 CFR 60.274a(h) for all heats covered by the 
test.
    (4) You must notify and receive approval from the Administrator for 
procedures that will be used to determine compliance for an EAF or AOD 
vessel when emissions are combined with those from facilities not 
subject to this subpart.
    (5) To determine compliance with the PM emissions limit in 
paragraph (c) of this section for an EAF or AOD vessel in a lb/ton of 
steel format, compute the process-weighted mass emissions 
(Ep) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE07.004

Where:

Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM, lb/ton;
C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
T = Total time during a test run that a sample is withdrawn from the 
stack during steel production cycle, hr;
P = Total amount of metal produced during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound.

    (6) If you own or operate an existing affected source that is 
subject to the emissions limits in paragraph (b) or (c) of this 
section, you may certify initial compliance with the applicable 
emission limit for one or more emissions sources based on the results 
of a previous performance test for that emissions source in lieu of the 
requirement for an initial performance test provided that the test(s) 
were conducted within 5 years of the compliance date using the methods 
and procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section; 
the test(s) were for the affected facility; and the test(s) were 
representative of current or anticipated operating processes and 
conditions. Should the permitting authority deem the prior test data 
unacceptable to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissions 
limit, the owner or operator must conduct an initial performance test 
within 180 days of the compliance date or within 90 days of receipt of 
the notification of disapproval of the prior test, whichever is later.
    (e) You must monitor the capture system and PM control device 
required by this subpart, maintain records, and submit reports 
according to the compliance assurance monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 
part 64. The exemption in 40 CFR 64.2(b)(1)(i) for emissions 
limitations or standards proposed after November 15, 1990 under section 
111 or 112 of the CAA does not apply. In lieu of the deadlines for 
submittal in 40 CFR 64.5, you must submit the monitoring information 
required by 40 CFR 64.4 to the applicable permitting authority for

[[Page 74115]]

approval by no later than the compliance date for your affected source 
for this subpart and operate according to the approved plan by no later 
than 180 days after the date of approval by the permitting authority.

Other Information and Requirements


Sec.  63.10690  What parts of the General Provisions apply to this 
subpart?

    (a) You must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as provided in Table 1 of this 
subpart.
    (b) The notification of compliance status required by Sec.  63.9(h) 
must include each applicable certification of compliance, signed by a 
responsible official, in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) For the pollution prevention plan requirements in Sec.  
63.10685(a)(1): ``This facility has submitted a pollution prevention 
plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection in accordance with 
Sec.  63.10685(a)(1)'';
    (2) For the restrictions on metallic scrap in Sec.  63.10685(a)(2): 
``This facility complies with the requirements for restricted metallic 
scrap in accordance with Sec.  63.10685(a)(2)'';
    (3) For the mercury requirements in Sec.  63.10685(b):
    (i) ``This facility has prepared a site-specific plan for mercury 
switches in accordance with Sec.  63.10685(b)(1)'';
    (ii) ``This facility participates in and purchases motor vehicle 
scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a program for 
removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the EPA 
Administrator in accordance with Sec.  63.10685(b)(2)'' and has 
prepared a plan demonstrating how the facility participates in the EPA-
approved program in accordance with Sec.  63.10685(b)(2)(iv);
    (iii) ``The only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap charged 
to an electric arc furnace at this facility are materials recovered for 
their specialty alloy content in accordance with Sec.  63.10685(b)(3) 
which are not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches''; or
    (iv) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that 
does not contain motor vehicle scrap in accordance with Sec.  
63.10685(b)(4).''
    (4) This certification of compliance for the capture system 
requirements in Sec.  63.10686(a), signed by a responsible official: 
``This facility operates a capture system for each electric arc furnace 
and argon-oxygen decarburization vessel that conveys the collected 
emissions to a PM control device in accordance with Sec.  
63.10686(a)''.
    (5) If applicable, this certification of compliance for the 
performance test requirements in Sec.  63.10686(d)(6): ``This facility 
certifies initial compliance with the applicable emissions limit in 
Sec.  63.10686(a) or (b) based on the results of a previous performance 
test in accordance with Sec.  63.10686(d)(6)''.
    (6) This certification of compliance for the monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  63.10686(e), signed by a responsible official: 
``This facility has developed and submitted proposed monitoring 
information in accordance with 40 CFR part 64''.


Sec.  63.10691  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA or a 
delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce 
this subpart. You should contact your 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 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 (6) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
40 CFR 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
40 CFR 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40 
CFR 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined 
in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (6) Approval of a program for the removal of mercury switches under 
Sec.  63.10685(b)(2).


Sec.  63.10692  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:
    Argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel means any closed-bottom, 
refractory-lined converter vessel with submerged tuyeres through which 
gaseous mixtures containing argon and oxygen or nitrogen may be blown 
into molten steel for further refining.
    Capture system means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans, 
dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport emissions generated by an 
electric arc furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization vessel to the air 
pollution control device.
    Chlorinated plastics means solid polymeric materials that contain 
chlorine in the polymer chain, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PVC 
copolymers.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by an 
electric arc furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization vessel.
    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.
    Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a furnace that produces molten 
steel and heats the charge materials with electric arcs from carbon 
electrodes. An electric arc furnace consists of the furnace shell, 
roof, and the transformer.
    Electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility means a steel plant 
that produces carbon, alloy, or specialty steels using an EAF. This 
definition excludes EAF steelmaking facilities at steel foundries and 
EAF facilities used to produce nonferrous metals.
    Free organic liquids means material that fails the paint filter 
test by EPA Method 9095B, (revision 2, dated November 1994) 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) after accounting for water 
using a moisture determination test by ASTM Method D2216-05 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14). If, after conducting a 
moisture determination test, if any portion of the material passes 
through and drops from the filter within the 5-

[[Page 74116]]

minute test period, the material contains free organic liquids.
    Leaded steel means steel that must meet a minimum specification for 
lead content (typically 0.25 percent or more) and for which lead is a 
necessary alloy for that grade of steel.
    Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch 
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed 
in a vehicle.
    Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and 
usually operated with rubber tires for use on highways.
    Motor vehicle scrap means vehicle or automobile bodies, including 
automobile body hulks, that have been processed through a shredder. 
Motor vehicle scrap does not include automobile manufacturing bundles, 
or miscellaneous vehicle parts, such as wheels, bumpers or other 
components that do not contain mercury switches.
    Nonferrous metals means any pure metal other than iron or any metal 
alloy for which an element other than iron is its major constituent by 
percent in weight.
    Scrap provider means the person (including a broker) who contracts 
directly with a steel mill to provide scrap that contains motor vehicle 
scrap. Scrap processors such as shredder operators or vehicle 
dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to a steel mill are not 
scrap providers.
    Specialty steel means low carbon and high alloy steel other than 
stainless steel that is processed in an argon-oxygen decarburization 
vessel.
    Stainless steel means low carbon steel that contains at least 10.5 
percent chromium.

Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.10691(a), you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) shown in the following table.

           Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYYY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Subject          Applies to subpart YYYYY?         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),   Applicability.........  Yes........................
 (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12),
 (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2),
 (c)(5), (e).
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               Yes........................
                                      Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited Activities   Yes........................
                                      and Circumvention.
Sec.   63.5........................  Preconstruction Review  Yes........................
                                      and Notification
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5),       Compliance with         Yes........................
 (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),      Standards and
 (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-      Maintenance
 (e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1),        Requirements.
 (h)(2), (h)(5)-(h)(9), (i), (j).
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), (a)(2), (b),      Monitoring              Yes........................  Requirements apply if
 (c), (d), (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g).      Requirements.                                        a COMS or CEMS is
                                                                                           used.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............  No.........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Additional Monitoring   No.........................
                                      Requirements for
                                      Control Devices in
                                      Sec.   63.11.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous Monitoring   Yes........................  Requirements apply if
                                      System Requirements.                                 a COMS or CEMS is
                                                                                           used.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  RATA Alternative......  Yes........................  Requirements apply if
                                                                                           a CEMS is used.
Sec.   63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2),      Notification            Yes........................
 (b)(5), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h)(1)-  Requirements.
 (h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i), (j).
Sec.   63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)..........  Reserved..............  No.........................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)..................  ......................  No.........................
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-  Recordkeeping and       Yes........................  Additional records for
 (v), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1),    Reporting                                            CMS in Sec.
 (c)(5)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(15),      Requirements.                                        63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)-
 (d), (e)(1)-(e)(4), (f).                                                                  (15), and reports in
                                                                                           Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-
                                                                                           (2) apply if a COMS
                                                                                           or CEMS is used.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  CMS Records for RATA    Yes........................  Requirements apply if
                                      Alternative.                                         a CEMS is used.
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,              Yes........................
                                      Incorporations by
                                      Reference,
                                      Availability of
                                      Information,
                                      Performance Track
                                      Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-24837 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
