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