Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083-0125
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-12-28T05:00Z

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

	

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-      ]

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

ADDRESSES:  The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.  All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  index. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the 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:

Category	NAICS code1	Examples of regulated 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:      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/" 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ .  The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C.  Judicial Review

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

	Section 307(d)(7)(B) 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, pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas. 
Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as
the “Urban HAP.”  See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999.  Section 112(c)(3)
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation.  EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP emissions
in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.  Sierra Club sued EPA,
alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source categories
listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) within the time
frame specified by the statute.  See Sierra Club v. Johnson, No.
01-1537, (D.D.C.).  On March 31, 2006, the court issued an order
requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d) for those
area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).  Among
other things, the court order, as amended on October 15, 2007, requires
that EPA complete standards for 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.  

	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 [INSERT DATE
6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  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
[INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] (if the startup
date is on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]) or upon startup (if the startup date is after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]).

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 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 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.      

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 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 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 §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 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 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 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 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 website (  HYPERLINK "http://www.elvsolutions.org" 
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
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 website at
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 website, 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.

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
§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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/appliancereport.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/appliancereport.html ) prepared
for the State of Massachusetts 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 §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 §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 §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
§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
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
§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
§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 §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 §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 §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 not contain motor vehicle scrap.

	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).

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 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 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   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html" 
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, 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.  

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 §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 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 §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 §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 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 be
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
include deviation reports, semiannual monitoring reports, and annual
compliance certifications.    	  

	Consistent with §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
§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 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 (Public Law No. 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 §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 §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 §63.7(f) and
§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 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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

				

Dated:                 

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

	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]

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

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

Subpart A–-[AMENDED]

Section 63.14 is amended as follows:

a.  By adding paragraph (b)(63);

b.  By revising paragraph (i)(1); and

c.  By adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv).

§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
§63.10692.

*  *  *  *  *

	(i)  *  *  *

	(1)  ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for
§§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 §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

§63.10680  Am I subject to this subpart?

	(a)  You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an electric
are 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.

§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 [INSERT DATE
6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

	(b)  If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with opacity limit in §63.10686(b)(2) or (c)(2) by
no later than [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] 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 [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with
the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later than [INSERT DATE
OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(d)  If you start up a new affected source after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with
the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected
source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements

§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 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.  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 §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 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 §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.  

§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 §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 §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 §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:

 				(Eq. 1)

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 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

§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 §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
§63.10685(a)(1):  “This facility has submitted a pollution prevention
plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection in accordance with
§63.10685(a)(1)”;

(2)  For the restrictions on metallic scrap in §63.10685(a)(2): 
“This facility complies with the requirements for restricted metallic
scrap in accordance with §63.10685(a)(2)”;

(3)  For the mercury requirements in §63.10685(b):

	(i)  “This facility has prepared a site-specific plan for mercury
switches in accordance with §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 the EPA Administrator in
accordance with §63.10685(b)(2)” and has prepared a plan
demonstrating how the facility participates in the EPA-approved program
in accordance with §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 §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
§63.10685(b)(4).” 

	(4)  This certification of compliance for the capture system
requirements in §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 §63.10686(a)”.

	(5)  If applicable, this certification of compliance for the
performance test requirements in §63.10686(d)(6):  “This facility
certifies initial compliance with the applicable emissions limit in
§63.10686(a) or (b) based on the results of a previous performance test
in accordance with §63.10686(d)(6)”.

	(6)  This certification of compliance for the monitoring requirements
in §63.10686(e), signed by a responsible official:  “This facility
has developed and submitted proposed monitoring information in
accordance with 40 CFR part 64”.

§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
§63.6(h)(9).

	(3)  Approval of a major change to test methods under §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
§63.10685(b)(2).

§63.10692  What definitions apply to this subpart?

	Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §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 §63.14) after accounting for water using a moisture
determination test by ASTM Method D2216-05 (incorporated by
reference-see §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-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 is 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

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART YYYYY OF PART 63.  APPLICABILITY OF

GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART YYYYY

	 As required in §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.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Citation	Subject	Applies to Subpart YYYYY?
Explanation

§63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1),
(b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)	Applicability	Yes.

	§63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d) 	Reserved	No.

	§63.2	Definitions	Yes.

	§63.3	Units and Abbreviations	Yes.

	§63.4	Prohibited Activities and Circumvention	Yes.

	§63.5	Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements	Yes.

	§63.6(a),

(b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)3)(i),
(e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(5)-(h)(9), (i), (j)
Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements	Yes.

	§63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
(h)(5)(iv)	Reserved	No.

	§63.7	Applicability and Performance Test Dates	Yes.

	§63.8(a)(1), (a)(2),(b), (c),(d),(e),

(f)(1)-(5), (g)	Monitoring Requirements  	Yes…	Requirements apply if a
COMS or CEMS is used.  

§63.8(a)(3)	[Reserved]	No.

	§63.8(a)(4)

	Additional Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices in §63.11	No.

	§63.8(c)(4)	Continuous Monitoring System Requirements	Yes…
Requirements apply if a COMS or CEMS is used.

§63.8(f)(6)	RATA Alternative	Yes…	Requirements apply if a CEMS is
used.

§63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h)(1)-(h)(3),
(h)(5), (h)(6), (i), (j)	Notification Requirements	Yes.

	§63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)	Reserved	No.

	§63.9(b)(4)

No.

	§63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-(v),

(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3),(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(15),(d),

(e)(1)- (e)(4), (f) 	Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements	Yes…
Additional records for CMS in §63.10(c)

(1)-(6),(9)-(15), and reports in §63.10(d)(1)-(2) apply if a COMS or
CEMS is used.  

§63.10(b)(2)

(xiii)	CMS Records for RATA Alternative	Yes…	Requirements apply if a
CEMS is used.

§63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)	Reserved	No.

	§63.11	Control Device Requirements	No.

	§63.12	State Authority and Delegations	Yes.

	§§63.13-63.16	Addresses, Incorporations by Reference, Availability of
Information, Performance Track Provisions	Yes.	

 

 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.

  Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in
1999, EPA has revised the area source category list   several times.

  Additional details can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm  and in section IV.D.1 of this
preamble.  In particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.

 PAGE   

  PAGE  73 

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

Page   PAGE  127  of   NUMPAGES  159