costs, and uncertainties, we determined in the proposal that the
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and that no additional standards are required under CAA section
112(f). This decision was based largely on the substantial
uncertainties in the estimates of the baseline HAP emissions from UFIP
emission sources, costs of the work practices, HAP risk reductions that
would be achieved by the work practices, and uncertainties raised by
industry in their comments regarding potential effects of the work
practices on the facilities' operations, safety, and economics.
    Furthermore, as described in section IV.B, for most of the same
reasons discussed above in regard to ample margin of safety analysis
for UFIP emissions, no new standards were proposed for the two
regulated UFIP sources under the technology review pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the final rule change based on the comments received about
UFIP sources?
    We are not promulgating any new standards for UFIP emissions
sources under the risk or technology reviews, as described in sections
IV.A and IV.B. We also are not taking final action to establish
additional emission standards for any of the UFIP emissions sources
under any other CAA authority at this time. Although we received many
comments on UFIP sources, both supporting and opposing additional
standards, we did not receive any additional data on UFIP emissions or
on the effectiveness of the work practices. We did receive some limited
additional information on costs that suggested we may have
underestimated the costs for some of the work practices discussed in
the proposal, but no citations or documentation were provided to
validate the new cost information. We also received comments that
suggested we may have overestimated UFIP emissions and control-
effectiveness of the work practices, but, again, without any citations
of documentation for other emission estimates or control efficiencies
of the work practices. For these reasons, and because we do not have
adequate information to resolve the substantial uncertainty that
remains for the UFIP emissions estimates, control efficiency of the
work practices, costs, and other factors, we are not promulgating any
new requirements for UFIP sources in this action.
3. What key comments did we receive about UFIP sources that were not
already addressed under the risk review section of this preamble and
what are our responses?
    This section provides a summary of some of the key comments and
responses regarding UFIP sources not addressed above in section IV.A.3.
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal in regard to
UFIP and the EPA's responses to those comments are available in the
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and
Technology Review for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities, located in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0083).
    Comment: One commenter recognized that the EPA identified the work
practice information as uncertain, and in fact, too uncertain to be
relied upon in this rulemaking. The commenter appreciated the EPA's
recognition of these issues and supported the Agency's conclusions. The
commenter is pleased that the EPA is not proposing to rely on
unsupported conclusions as part of a final rule.
    Another commenter stated the EPA created the ``UFIP'' designation
to refer to emissions that facilities generally try to prevent from
occurring in the first place. In other words, facilities are already
naturally incentivized to prevent many UFIP emissions as they reflect
nonoptimal operation. Thus, the commenter says, facilities operate to
minimize these emissions without additional regulatory requirements;
imposing a regulatory overlay would be problematic from an operational
perspective and would not lead to reduced emissions. The commenter
stated regulating these sources would dictate how facilities operate--
effectively freezing approaches in time when they should be evolving as
part of the continuous improvement process. Second, the commenter
stated regulation would impose a one-size-fits-all approach for sources
that make products in different ways and have different configurations.
Third, the commenter stated regulation of UFIP would create a micro-
managerial structure that would be costly--even if not from a capital
investment perspective--because of the operational nature of many of
the approaches the EPA considered. This micro-managerial structure, the
commenter stated, would lead to only ``paperwork'' deviations, by
imposing onerous recordkeeping requirements, which will mean that
operators' and inspectors' attention will be taken away from critical
aspects of plant operations, even when a plant is not causing increased
emissions. Thus, the commenter concluded the emission reduction
practices presented by the EPA for UFIP sources provide no risk
reduction benefit despite the cost and effort they entail. Finally, the
commenter stated that, given the intense competition in this industry,
which stretches well beyond U.S. borders, these requirements would put
U.S. facilities at a cost disadvantage--and

would do so without generating commensurate emissions and risk
reductions.
    The commenter stated the EPA appropriately acknowledges that there
are significant uncertainties in costs, effectiveness, and feasibility
of the work practice options on which it seeks comment. The commenter
stated the estimates in the proposal drastically understate the costs
and likewise overstate any emission reductions that would be achieved,
since companies already work to prevent these emissions and are
incentivized to do so to maintain their operations in the most
efficient and safe manner. Although the EPA estimates the specific
costs for each of the work practices discussed in the proposal
preamble, the commenter stated the EPA fails to attribute potential HAP
emissions reductions individually, and, thus, does not appropriately
estimate cost effectiveness. The commenter stated that, even without
these additional considerations, the EPA is right not to require them,
and that with an accurate view of the costs and benefits of this
regulatory overlay, the EPA decision is unquestionably correct.
    The commenter stated given the risk modeling, the work practice
options discussed are not necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety. The commenter stated the various compliance and enforcement
documents related to the so-called UFIP sources in the rulemaking
docket are not to the contrary. Moreover, the commenter stated it would
be unreasonable to require the potential work practices as doing so
would codify practices that already occur voluntarily or pursuant to
current federal or state requirements and drive up costs of compliance
without resulting in any risk reduction. The commenter stated adding a
substantial administrative burden to an important economic sector,
particularly without clear benefit, is contrary to Congress' purpose
under the CAA and with reasoned decision-making. The commenter stated
the focus should be on maximizing environmentally beneficial results,
not paperwork. The commenter stated codifying work practices that
already take place on a case-by-case basis would result in a
misdirection of resources not only from the steel industry to comply
with added monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, but
also from the EPA by having to assure compliance with details that
ultimately have little bearing on air quality and public health.
    The commenter stated many of the work practices are practically
infeasible as applied to particular plants or, generally, not cost
effective and, in some instances, could even be contrary to practices
established to assure facility safety, such as what would result from
reducing natural ventilation and other effects of closing the openings
and air holes in the BF casthouse and BOP shop. These effects include
cost to the facility to otherwise increase breathing space ventilation
for workers; the wear and tear on control equipment due to higher-than-
design air flowrates; the cost to document opening and closing of
doors, windows, etc., to accommodate large equipment and vehicle
traffic into buildings; difficulty in accessing some openings that may
be hundreds of feet off the ground, requiring significant precautions
due to the height alone; and prevent the opening of pressure relief
panels, which would badly damage building exteriors during high-
pressure events, etc. Therefore, the commenter stated the EPA should,
thus, finalize its proposal not to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF
to require additional work practices for UFIP sources.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the support by the commenter for the
proposed conclusions, which are being finalized in this document. The
EPA also acknowledges, as the commenter points out, the complexities in
controlling emissions from UFIP sources. The EPA also is pleased to
know that the industry is already attempting to minimize these
emissions.
    We do not agree with the commenter that many of the work practices
are ``practically infeasible'' at all plants, but we cannot adequately
assess the effectiveness or impacts of the work practices without more
specific descriptions of actual facility experience with, or analyses
of, the impacts of the work practices, including potential changes in
air flow into and out of the buildings beyond the extreme consequences
hypothesized by the commenter, which mostly only concern BF casthouse
and BOP shop operations. With the understanding that the work practices
could be more difficult to implement at some facilities than others, we
sought specific comments on the general feasibility of the work
practices, with the hope that commenters could have described ways to
improve or modify the work practice so as to be amenable to their use
at all facilities. Unfortunately, we received very little information
through the public comments to improve our understanding of which work
practices would be generally feasible and appropriate across the
industry.
    In regard to calculating cost effectiveness, since the HAP being
evaluated are all various PM HAP metals, we conclude that it would
neither be appropriate nor logical to apportion control costs of a work
practice or control device to each metal HAP in this case, mainly
because the intent of the control methods we analyzed is to minimize
emissions of the mix of PM HAP metals. Nevertheless, as described
elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is not promulgating any new or
revised standards for UFIP sources in this action.
    Comment: One commenter stated, based on the record, it is unclear
how or why the EPA ended its staff's consideration of the work practice
standards for the proposal, or on what basis it did so. In addition,
the commenter noted that the EPA contacted Michigan and Indiana and
provided ``draft work practice standards,'' as shown by email
communications with these states in 2018. The commenter continued that
there was some material in the bodies of the emails that the EPA has
disclosed showing these would likely have been important and achieved
significant emission reductions. It is clear to the commenter that the
EPA staff long planned to propose significant emission reduction
requirements, based on the evidence they have in the record, and that
the state air quality inspectors and regulators also supported these
requirements.
    The commenter stated the EPA has failed to show how it can lawfully
or rationally not follow what its own regulatory staff initially
provided to stakeholders, what its enforcement staff apparently support
(EPA Region V), and what state regulators in Michigan and Indiana have
also supported as needed to reduce UFIP emissions and protect public
health. The commenter stated the EPA's ``about-face'' from its staff's
and state air regulators' recommendations, and its ultimate refusal to
follow the evidence in the record illustrate that this proposal, if
finalized, would be unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated it
appears that the EPA Administrator has not acted with the requisite
open mind to consider the relevant statutory requirements, record, or
staff recommendations which would have led to a stronger proposal and a
stronger final rule. The commenter stated the EPA will violate the CAA
and engage in the ultimate in capricious decision making if it attempts
to finalize this proposed rule which lacks the necessary statutory
requirements as well as the required rational connection to the facts
shown in the record.
    Response: While the EPA agrees with the commenter that the UFIP HAP
emissions issue and related information

available to the EPA were worthy of bringing forth to the public and
asking for comment in the proposal, no additional technical information
was received to improve our understanding or quantification of the UFIP
emissions or our understanding of the effectiveness of using work
practices to control UFIP emissions. We received some new cost
information that suggests that we underestimated the costs of the work
practices, but that new information was not documented or cited. We
also received comments that we overestimated UFIP emissions and
overestimated the effectiveness of the work practices, which combined
with information suggesting we underestimated costs, if accurate, would
make control of UFIP emissions substantially less cost-effective than
the values we presented in the proposal preamble. In addition, although
environmental groups submitted comments in general support of UFIP
regulations, no comments were received from citizens or community
groups living in the areas of the integrated iron and steel facilities
supporting the UFIP emission regulations, or on the impact to local
residents of not requiring work practices to reduce emissions from
these sources, or any other claims as such. Therefore, because of the
uncertainty in the UFIP emission estimates, cost estimates, and control
efficiencies of the work practices; and the lack of complete
information about the impact of UFIP emissions at all facilities (as
described above in previous comments), the EPA is not promulgating any
work practice standards for UFIP emissions at this time. See above
section IV.A for a more detailed discussion of the estimated risk from
UFIP emissions.
4. What is our rationale for our final approach for the UFIP sources?
    The decision not to promulgate any new standards for UFIP sources
at this time is based largely on the uncertainties in the UFIP
assessment in terms of the emission estimates, costs of the work
practices, how much emission reduction the work practices could
achieve, and the potential negative effects of the work practices on
the facilities' operations, safety, and economics. For five of the UFIP
sources not currently regulated,\18\ we would need to promulgate
standards for these sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3),
which would necessitate an analysis of the top performers under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The lack of quantitative emissions data
(and the time and techniques to obtain such data) for UFIP sources and/
or the lack of other relevant information (such as reliable information
regarding the effectiveness of each of the work practices), which is
needed to establish the top performing facilities and the MACT floor
level of control, prevents us from establishing appropriate emissions
standards for the five UFIP sources at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The five currently unregulated UFIP sources are BF bleeder
valve unplanned openings (also known as slips), BF bleeder valve
planned openings, BF bell leaks, BF iron beaching, and BF slag
handling and storage operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the other two UFIP sources currently regulated
(i.e., BF casthouse and BOPF shop), since we have concluded that risks
due to emissions from the source category are acceptable, we would need
to promulgate standards for these two UFIP sources pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) or under the ample margin of safety analysis phase of
our section 112(f) review, both of which include considerations of
costs and other factors. As explained previously in this preamble, the
EPA has decided to not promulgate any of the work practices for these
two UFIP sources at this time mainly because of the substantial
uncertainties in the UFIP assessment in terms of baseline emissions,
costs of the work practices, how much emission reduction the work
practices could achieve; and, the potential negative effects of the
work practices on the facilities' operations, safety, and economics.

G. Other Items

    Other items in this final rule are IBR, compliance dates, and other
rule changes not discussed elsewhere in this preamble. These issues are
discussed below.
1. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
    On August 16, 2019, the EPA proposed regulatory text that includes
IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to
incorporate by reference the following documents and to amend 40 CFR
63.14 to identify the provisions for which these documents are IBR
approved for this rule:
     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), and 63.7825(b). This method
determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts
resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases addressed in
the method are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen,
sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. The method is approved for this
rule with caveats described in section VI.J of this preamble.
     EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7831(f). This document provides
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak
detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.
    For the final rule, in response to comments, we have added the
following voluntary consensus standard (VCS) approved as an alternate
method to measure opacity under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, with
caveats described in section VI.J of this preamble; we will incorporate
the method by reference in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7823(c), 63.7823(d), 63.7823(e), and
63.7833(g). This method describes procedures to determine the opacity
of a plume, using digital imagery and associated hardware and software,
where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a stationary point source in
the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity of emissions is determined
by the application of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera,
analysis software, and the output function's content to obtain and
interpret digital images to determine and report plume opacity. The
method is approved for this rule with caveats described in section VI.J
of this preamble.
    The ANSI/ASME document is available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-
2763. The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, the EPA document generally
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ and at
the EPA Docket Center (see the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble for more information).
2. Compliance Dates
    On August 16, 2019, we proposed to provide existing sources with
180 days after the effective date of the final rule to comply with the
changes to the SSM provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and all
other new or revised requirements in this rule except for the mercury
emission limits, for which we proposed to require compliance within 1
year. We proposed that new sources, defined as BOPFs, BOPF shops, or
facilities constructed or reconstructed after August 16, 2019, would be
required to comply with all requirements on the effective date of the
final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
    In the final rule, for the SSM provisions and all other new or
revised requirements in this rule except for those related to the
mercury standards, we are finalizing the compliance times as proposed
(180 days) for existing sources, and new sources will need to comply
upon the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is
later. Regarding the mercury standards and associated requirements, we
are providing for existing sources the same deadlines as proposed
(i.e., 1 year to comply). An additional year may be provided for
compliance via the states as per 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions (40
CFR 63.6(i)) for facilities needing to make process changes or install
control equipment. As proposed and consistent with the CAA, new sources
must comply upon the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later.
    For electronic reporting, the final rule provides that facilities
must comply with the electronic reporting requirements for semiannual
compliance reports either 180 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register of the final rule or 180 days after the electronic
reporting template for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities is available in CEDRI, whichever is later, to allow for EPA
revisions to the template in response to comments.
3. What other rule changes did we make in the final rule?
    In the final rule, we made the following technical and editorial
corrections and clarifications:
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7810(a) to provide sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
180 days after publication in the Federal Register for all sources to
comply with emission limitations during periods of SSM;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7810(c) to remove the SSM plan
requirement 180 days after publication in the Federal Register for
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
August 16, 2019 and to remove the SSM plan requirement upon publication
in the Federal Register for all sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after August 16, 2019;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7810(d) to provide sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019
with 180 days to comply with the general duty requirement in 40 CFR
63.7810(d). Prior to the expiration of the 180 days, such sources must
comply with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i);
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7822(a) to provide 180 days after
publication in the Federal Register for all sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019 comply with
the revised requirement to conduct each performance test under
conditions representative of normal operations, excluding periods of
startup and shutdown and malfunction. Prior to the expiration of 180
days, such sources must comply with the pre-existing requirement to
conduct performance tests based on representative performance;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7822 and 63.7823 to specify the
conditions for conducting performance tests;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7822(b)(1)(iii), 63.7824(e)(1)(iii), and
63.7825(b)(1)(iii) to IBR ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7822, 63.7823, 63.7824, and 63.7833 to
clarify the location in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test methods;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7823(a) to specify initial compliance
with the opacity limits should be based on representative performance
which excludes periods of startup and shutdown and malfunction;
     Added to 40 CFR 63.7823(c)(1), (d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i),
(e)(1) and 63.7833(g)(3) to IBR the ASTM D7520-16 method as an
alternative VCS to EPA Method 9 opacity observations; added ``For
Method 9'' to 40 CFR 63.7823(e)(3) to clarify that using an observer is
only for EPA Method 9;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(a)(4) to clarify that sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
and, therefore, are not required to comply during periods of SSM until
after 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are subject
during that 180 day period to the requirements in 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and (c)(8);
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(a)(5) to clarify that sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
and, therefore, are not required to comply during periods of SSM until
after 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are subject
during that 180 day period to the requirements related to SSM plans
referenced in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3);
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(a)(6) to provide sources
constructed or reconstructed on or before August 16, 2019, and,
therefore, are not required to comply during periods of SSM until after
180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are subject during
that 180 day period to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(c)(1) through
(c)(14), and (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i);
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(f)(4) to IBR for EPA-454/R-98-015;
     Added 40 CFR 63.7835(d) to specify that for sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019 the
exemptions for deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction no longer apply 180 days after publication in
the Federal Register, and for all other sources the exemptions no
longer apply as of the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7835, 63.7841, and 63.7842 to include
the requirements to record and report information on failures to meet
the applicable standard;
     Added 40 CFR 63.7840 and 63.7841 electronic reporting
requirements of required summaries of performance test results and
semiannual reports;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(4) to specify that for sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019 a
SSM plan and the information in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) are no longer
required 180 days after publication in the Federal Register;
     Added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(12) to specify that for sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019 a
SSM report is no longer required 180 days after publication in the
Federal Register;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.7842(a)(2) to specify records related to
SSM to be kept;
     Revised Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF to add a
mercury emission limit, revised Table 2 to add demonstration of initial
compliance with the mercury emission limit, and revised Table 3 to add
demonstration of continuous compliance with the mercury emission limit;

     Revised Tables 1 and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF to
clarify that opacity observations be made at all openings to the BF
casthouse;
     Revised Tables 1, 2, and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFFF to clarify that the affected source is each BOPF shop; and
     Eliminated the SSM exemption with revisions to Table 4
(the General Provisions table) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and
updated citations throughout the remaining rule text.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?

    The affected sources are facilities in the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category. This includes any
facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore. Integrated iron and
steel manufacturing includes the following processes: Sinter
production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal
desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process
includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing
materials with a hot gas. The steel production process includes BOPF.
Based on the data we have, there are eleven integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities subject to this NESHAP, but one of these
facilities is idle.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are promulgating standards for mercury that may result in
unquantified reductions of mercury emissions and consequently improve
air quality to some degree.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    In this final rule, we require control of mercury emissions and
allow sources to demonstrate compliance through performance testing or
scrap selection requirements. We expect that facilities that choose
scrap selection as their method of demonstrating compliance likely will
not incur operational costs to comply with this requirement because we
understand that most, if not all, facilities are already purchasing all
their auto scrap from providers who participate in the NVMSRP.
Therefore, we estimate a cost of $1,058 per year per facility and
$11,639 per year for all 11 facilities in the industry, for
recordkeeping and reporting of compliance with the standards.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Negligible economic impacts are expected to be incurred by
integrated iron and steel facilities due to the mercury emission limit
because the information available to the EPA indicates that most, if
not all, facilities are already purchasing scrap from providers who
participate in the NVMSRP.

E. What are the benefits?

    These promulgated amendments may result in some unquantified
reductions in emissions of mercury, depending on the extent of current
limitation of mercury input or participation in the scrap selection
program by integrated iron and steel facilities. While the industry has
reported to the EPA that most, or all, facilities are already meeting
the proposed mercury emission limit, to the extent that additional
reductions may be achieved, this rule may result in improved health in
surrounding populations, especially protection of children from the
negative health impacts of mercury exposure.
    The requirements to submit reports and test results electronically
will reduce paperwork and improve monitoring, compliance, and
implementation of the rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    For this action, we examined the potential for any environmental
justice issues that might be associated with the source category
through a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometer (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks
from point sources in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category across different demographic groups within
the populations living near facilities.
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions from point sources for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

          Table 5--Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1  Population with chronic
                                                                     million due to      HI at or above 1 due to
                 Item                         Nationwide          integrated iron and      integrated iron and
                                                                  steel  manufacturing     steel manufacturing
                                                                       facilities               facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.....................              317,746,049                   64,158                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................                      62%                      63%                       0%
Minority.............................                      38%                      37%                       0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.....................                      12%                      29%                       0%
Native American......................                     0.8%                     0.1%                       0%
Hispanic or Latino includes white and                      18%                       4%                       0%
 nonwhite)...........................
Other and Multiracial................                       7%                       4%                       0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level..................                      14%                      23%                       0%
Above Poverty Level..................                      86%                      77%                       0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School                            14%                      12%                       0%
 Diploma.............................

Over 25 and with a High School                             86%                      88%                       0%
 Diploma.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..............                       6%                     0.6%                       0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category demographic analysis indicate that point
source emissions from the source category expose approximately 64,000
people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero people to a
chronic noncancer HI greater than or equal to 1. The percentages of the
at-risk population in each demographic group (except for African
American and Below Poverty Level) are similar to or lower than their
respective nationwide percentages. The African American population with
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category emissions is more than 3 times
the national average. Likewise, populations living ``Below Poverty
Level'' exposed to cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million is nearly
twice the national average. However, the risks to all demographic
groups is less than 100-in-1 million.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-1060).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2003.09. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    These amendments require electronic reporting; remove the SSM
exemptions; and impose other revisions that affect reporting and
recordkeeping for integrated iron and steel facilities. We are also
promulgating standards for mercury that require facilities to certify
the type of steel scrap they use or conduct a performance test. This
information is collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF.
    Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF).
    Estimated number of respondents: 11 facilities.
    Frequency of Response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 6,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $800,000 (per year), of which $20,000 (per year) is
for this rule, and $780,000 is for other costs related to continued
compliance with the NESHAP including $50,300 for paperwork associated
with operation and maintenance requirements. The total rule costs
reflect a savings of $210,000 (per year) from the previous ICR due to
the transition to electronic reporting.
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. No small
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

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

    This action 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. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of
this preamble and further documented in the document titled Residual
Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2020 Final Rule, in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083).

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also
contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5,
5D, 9, 17, 25, 29, and 30B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and SW-846
Method 9071B Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods, EPA Publications SW-846 third edition. During the EPA's VCS
search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described
technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the
EPA's reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent
method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant
method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for
accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy
equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information
is available for a particular VCS. No applicable VCS were identified
for EPA Methods 1A, 2F, 2G, 5D, 30B, and SW-846 Method 9071B.
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' We are revising 40 CFR
63.7822(b), 40 CFR 63.7824(e), and 40 CFR 63.7825(b) to provide that
the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA
Method 3B.The manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of
VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference--see
40 CFR 63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This
standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is
available from ASME at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of
exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases
covered in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, however the use
in this rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide.
    In the final rule, the EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS
ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a
Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 9 with the following caveats:
     During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in
Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the facility or the DCOT vendor must
present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as
blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree
stand).
     The facility must also have standard operating procedures
in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure
the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in
Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
     The facility must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
     The facility or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
     This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 is on the
facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method describes
procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery
and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM
emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient
environment. The opacity of emissions is determined by the application
of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera, analysis software,
and the output function's content to obtain and interpret digital
images to determine and report plume opacity. The ASTM D7520-16
document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The EPA is finalizing the use of the guidance document, Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This
document provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as
fabric filter bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter
and monitoring system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection,
installation, setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance
procedures. The document is available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found

in the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this final
rule.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is included in sections III.A and IV.A
of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, available in the
docket for this final rule.
    We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category by performing a
demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the NESHAP source category across different
social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living
near facilities identified as having the highest risks. The methodology
and the results of the demographic analyses are included in a technical
report titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic
Factors for Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
    The results of the source category demographic analysis for the
NESHAP (point sources only) indicate that emissions expose
approximately 60 people to a cancer risk at or above 10-in-1 million
and none exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than or equal to
1. The specific demographic results indicate that the overall
percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is less
than its corresponding national percentage for the minority population
(37 percent for the source category compared to 38-percent nationwide).
However, the ``African American'' population (29 percent for the source
category compared to 12-percent nationwide) and the population ``Below
the Poverty Level'' are greater than their corresponding national
percentages. The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that
the population percentages for certain demographic categories within 5
km of source category emissions are greater than the corresponding
national percentage for certain demographic groups including: ``African
American,'' ``Ages 0 to 17,'' ``Over age 25 without a high school
diploma,'' and ``Below the poverty level.''
    The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are
acceptable for all populations. Furthermore, we do not expect this rule
to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore, we
conclude that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment. However, this final rule will
provide additional benefits to these demographic groups by improving
the compliance, monitoring, and implementation of the NESHAP.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h)(106),
and (n)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.997(e), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE,
63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a),
63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, table3 to
subpart YYYY, 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 63.7825(b), 63.9307(c),
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g),
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart
DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and
5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart
JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (106) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b), table 3 to subpart LLLLL,
63.7823(c) through (e), and 63.7833(g).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7525(j), 63.7831(f),
63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

Subpart FFFFF--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.7783 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (b), and (c) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7783  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. This paragraph does not
apply to the emission limitations for mercury.
* * * * *
    (b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before May 20, 2003, then you must comply with each emission
limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this
subpart that applies to you by May 20, 2003. This paragraph does not
apply to the emission limitations for mercury.

    (c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after May 20, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation,
standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart
that applies to you upon initial startup. This paragraph does not apply
to the emission limitations for mercury.
* * * * *
    (f) With regard to the mercury emission limitations, if you have a
new or existing affected source, you must comply with each emission
limitation for mercury that applies to you by the deadlines set forth
in Sec.  63.7791.

0
4. The undesignated center heading before Sec.  63.7790 is revised to
read:

Emission Limitations and Standards

0
5. Section 63.7791 is added before the undesignated center heading
``Operation and Maintenance Requirements'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7791  How do I comply with the requirements for the control of
mercury?

    (a) Compliance deadlines. (1) If you have an existing affected
source or a new or reconstructed affected source for which construction
or reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, each BOPF
Group at your facility must be in compliance with the applicable
mercury emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart through performance
testing under Sec. Sec.  63.7825 and 63.7833, or through procurement of
steel scrap pursuant to the compliance options in Sec.  63.7791(c),
(d), or (e) beginning July 13, 2021.
    (2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019, each
BOPF Group at that source must be in compliance with the applicable
mercury emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart beginning July 13,
2020 or upon initial startup of your affected source, whichever is
later.
    (b) Alternative compliance demonstration. (1) As an alternative to
demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 by
conducting performance tests pursuant to Sec. Sec.  63.7825 and
63.7833(h), you may demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in
Table 1 by procuring scrap pursuant to the requirements in paragraph
(c), (d), or (e) of this section for each scrap provider, contract, or
shipment. It is not necessary to use the same BOPF scrap compliance
provision for all scrap providers, contracts, or shipments. You may
procure some scrap through providers, contracts, or shipments pursuant
to one BOPF scrap compliance provision and other scrap through
providers, contracts, or shipments pursuant to other BOPF scrap
compliance provisions.
    (2) To utilize the alternative compliance options established in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must submit an initial
certification of compliance and semiannual compliance reports
consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.7840(f) and
63.7841(b)(9) through (11), and (13), and comply with the recordkeeping
requirements in Sec.  63.7842(e) and all other applicable provisions
related to demonstrating compliance through participating in an
approved mercury program or through the use of scrap that does not
contain mercury switches.
    (3) For any facility that initially elects to utilize the
alternative compliance options established in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, but subsequently stops using scrap that meets the requirements
of paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section for each scrap provider,
contract, or shipment, within 180 days of the change you must, for that
BOPF Group, demonstrate compliance through performance testing pursuant
to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.7825 and 63.7833(h), and submit a
revised notice of compliance status in your next semiannual compliance
report described in this section. You must also comply with the
requirements for conducting subsequent performance tests in Sec. Sec.
63.7821(e) and 63.7840(g), and all other applicable requirements
related to demonstrating compliance with the emission limits through
performance testing.
    (c) Participation in the NVMSRP. (1) You must obtain all post-
consumer scrap that contains motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers
who participate in the NVMSRP. The NVMSRP is an EPA-approved program
under this section unless and until the Administrator disapproves the
program (in part or in whole);
    (2) You must certify in your initial notification of compliance
status required by Sec.  63.7840(f) and semiannual compliance report
required by Sec.  63.7841(a) that you purchased post-consumer steel
scrap containing motor vehicle scrap according to paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, and identify all your scrap providers in your semiannual
compliance report;
    (3) If you purchase scrap from a broker, you must certify that all
scrap received from that broker was obtained from other scrap providers
who participate in the NVMSRP and identify all scrap providers used by
all your scrap brokers in your semiannual compliance report; and
    (4) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers participate in
the NVMSRP and, therefore, are aware of the need for and are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury in
scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
    (d) Use of scrap that does not contain mercury switches. For BOPF
scrap not complying with the requirements in paragraph (c) or (e) of
this section, you must certify in your initial notification of
compliance report required by Sec.  63.7840(f) and semiannual
compliance report required by Sec.  63.7841(a) and maintain records of
documentation required by Sec.  63.7842(e) establishing that the scrap
does not contain mercury switches. You may satisfy this requirement by
certifying and documenting that:
    (1) The scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap; or
    (2) The scrap does not contain shredded motor vehicle scrap; or
    (3) The only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap are
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content (including, but
not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys);
therefore, based on the type of the scrap and purchase specifications,
the scrap does not contain mercury switches.
    (e) Use of an EPA-approved mercury removal program. (1) You must
obtain all post-consumer scrap containing motor vehicle scrap from
scrap providers who participate in a program for the removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the Administrator;
    (2) You must certify in your initial notification of compliance
status required by Sec.  63.7840(f) and semiannual compliance report
required by Sec.  63.7841(a) that you purchase post-consumer steel
scrap containing motor vehicle scrap according to paragraph (e)(1) of
this section and identify all your scrap providers in your semiannual
compliance report;
    (3) If you purchase 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 and identify all scrap providers
used by all your scrap brokers in your semiannual compliance report;
and
    (4) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers are complying
with the approved mercury removal

program and, therefore, are aware of the need for and are implementing
appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from
end-of-life vehicles.

0
6. Section 63.7800 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7800  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the requirements in Sec.  63.7810(d).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.7810 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7810  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

    (a) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limitations, standards, and operation and
maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 11, 2021,
for each such source you must be in compliance with the emission
limitations in this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed
sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after August
16, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in
this subpart at all times.
* * * * *
    (c) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after January 11, 2021.
No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after August 16, 2019.
    (d) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must always
operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i). After January 11, 2021for each such source, and after
July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction
or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019, at all times, you
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not
require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

0
8. Section 63.7820 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7820  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (e) Notwithstanding the deadlines in this section, existing and new
affected sources must comply with the deadlines for making the initial
compliance demonstrations for the mercury emission limit set forth in
(e)(1) through (4) in this section.
    (1) If you have an existing affected BOPF Group or a new or
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before August 16, 2019, and you are demonstrating
compliance with the emission limit in Table 1 through performance
testing, you must conduct the initial performance test at your BOPF
Group to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission limit in
Table 1 no later than July 13, 2021.
    (2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected BOPF Group for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019,
and you are demonstrating compliance with the emission limit in Table 1
through performance testing, you must conduct the initial performance
test at your BOPF Group to demonstrate compliance with the mercury
emission limit in Table 1 within 180 days of July 13, 2020 or within
180 days of initial startup of your affected source, whichever is
later.
    (3) If you have an existing affected BOPF Group or a new or
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before August 16, 2019, and you are demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 through the
requirements in Sec.  63.7791(c) through (e), you must certify
compliance in accordance with Sec.  63.7840(f) in your notification of
compliance and in accordance with Sec.  63.7841(b)(11) in your first
semiannual compliance report after July 13, 2021.
    (4) If you have a new affected BOPF Group or a new or reconstructed
affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after August 16, 2019, and you are demonstrating compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 through the requirements in Sec.
63.7791(b) through (d), you must certify compliance in accordance with
Sec.  63.7840(f) in your initial notification of compliance and in
accordance with Sec.  63.7841(b)(11) in your first semiannual
compliance report after July 13, 2021 or after initial startup of your
BOPF Group, whichever is later.

0
9. Section 63.7821 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7821  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in Table 1
to this subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) For each BOPF Group, if demonstrating compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart through performance
testing under Sec. Sec.  63.7825 and 63.7833, you must conduct
subsequent performance tests twice per permit cycle (i.e., mid-term and
initial/final) for sources with title V operating permits, and every
2.5 years for sources without a title V operating permit, at the outlet
of the control devices for the BOPF Group.

0
10. Section 63.7822 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.7822  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?

    (a) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must conduct
each performance test that applies to your

affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (i) of this section. After January 11, 2021 for each such
source, and after July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019,
you must conduct each performance test under conditions representative
of normal operations. The owner or operator must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You
shall not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the following test methods:
    (i) EPA Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) EPA Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B.
    (iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) EPA Method 5 or 5D in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 17 in appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter, as
applicable, to determine the concentration of particulate matter (front
half filterable catch only).
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.7823 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1),
(d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e)(1) and (3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7823  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section. Representative conditions exclude
periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds
of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field
use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a
sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter
except as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (A) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (B) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (C) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
    (D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification

plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent
opacity of anyone reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5-
percent opacity.
    (E) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (A) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (B) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (C) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
    (D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
    (E) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (i) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (3) Make visible emission observations of uncovered portions of
sinter plant coolers with the line of sight generally in the direction
of the center of the cooler.

0
12. Section 63.7824 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) introductory
text and (e)(1) and (2) and the defined term ``Mc'' in
Equation 1 in paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7824  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with operating limits?

* * * * *
    (e) To demonstrate initial compliance with the alternative
operating limit for volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec.  63.7790(d)(2), follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section. You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of
startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
    (1) Determine the volatile organic compound emissions according to
the following test methods:
    (i) EPA Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) EPA Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B.
    (iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) EPA Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the mass concentration of volatile organic compound emissions
(total gaseous nonmethane organics as carbon) from the sinter plant
windbox exhaust stream stack.

    (2) Determine volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions every 24
hours (from at least three samples taken at 8-hour intervals) using EPA
Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. Record the
sampling date and time, sampling results, and sinter produced (tons/
day).
    (3) * * *

Mc = Average concentration of total gaseous nonmethane
organics as carbon by EPA Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this
chapter, milligrams per dry standard cubic meters (mg/dscm) for each
day;
* * * * *

Sec.  Sec.  63.7825 and 63.7826   [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  63.7826
and 63.7827]

0
13. Sections 63.7825 and 63.7826 are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  63.7826
and 63.7827, respectively, and a new Sec.  63.7825 is added to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.7825  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit for mercury?

    (a) If demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limits
for each BOPF Group in Table 1 to this subpart through performance
testing, you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limit. If demonstrating compliance with
the emission limit through performance testing, you must conduct each
performance test that applies to your affected source based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested,
according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (f) of
this section. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. Initial compliance tests must be conducted by the
deadlines in Sec.  63.7820(e).
    (1) You must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
    (2) For sources with multiple emission units ducted to a common
control device and stack, compliance testing must be performed either
by conducting a single compliance test with all affected emissions
units in operation or by conducting a separate compliance test on each
emissions unit. Alternatively, the owner or operator may request
approval from the permit authority for an alternative testing approach.
If the units are tested separately, any emissions unit that is not
tested initially must be tested as soon as is practicable.
    (b) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for mercury
in Table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of mercury according to the
following test methods:
    (i) EPA Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) EPA Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B.
    (iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) EPA Method 29 or 30B in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter
to determine the concentration of mercury from each unit of the BOPF
Group exhaust stream stack. If performing measurements using EPA Method
29, you must collect a minimum sample volume of 1.7 dscm (60 dscf).
Alternative test methods may be considered on a case-by-case basis per
Sec.  63.7(f).
    (2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test
of each BOPF Group unit. If the performance testing results for any of
the emission points yields a non-detect value, then the minimum
detection limit (MDL) must be used to calculate the mass emissions (lb)
for that emission unit and, in turn, for calculating the sum of the
emissions (in units of pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap) for
all BOPF Group units subject to the emission standard for determining
compliance. If the resulting mercury emissions are greater than the
MACT emission standard, the owner or operator may use procedures that
produce lower MDL results and repeat the mercury performance testing
one additional time for any emission point for which the measured
result was below the MDL. If this additional testing is performed, the
results from that testing must be used to determine compliance (i.e.,
there are no additional opportunities allowed to lower the MDL).
    (3) For a primary emission control device applied to emissions from
a BOPF with a closed hood system, sample only during the primary oxygen
blow and do not sample during any subsequent reblows. Continue sampling
for each run for an integral number of primary oxygen blows.
    (4) For a primary emission control system applied to emissions from
a BOPF with an open hood system and for a control device applied solely
to secondary emissions from a BOPF, you must complete the requirements
of paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) Sample only during the steel production cycle. Conduct sampling
under conditions that are representative of normal operation. Record
the start and end time of each steel production cycle and each period
of abnormal operation; and
    (ii) Sample for an integral number of steel production cycles. The
steel production cycle begins when the scrap is charged to the furnace
and ends 3 minutes after the slag is emptied from the vessel into the
slag pot.
    (5) For a control device applied to emissions from BOPF shop
ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or
ladle metallurgy), sample only when the operation(s) is being
conducted.
    (c) Calculate the mercury mass emissions, based on the average of
three test run values, for each BOPF Group unit (or combination of
units that are ducted to a common stack and are tested when all
affected sources are operating pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section) using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JY20.000

Where:

E = Mass emissions of mercury, pounds (lb);
Cs = Concentration of mercury in stack gas, mg/dscm;
454,000 = Conversion factor (mg/lb);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/min;
35.31 = Conversion factor (dscf/dscm); and
t = Duration of test, minutes.

    (d) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate an
appropriate

weight measurement device, to measure the tons of steel scrap input to
the BOPF cycle simultaneous with each BOPF Group unit's stack test.
    (e) You must maintain the systems for measuring weight within
5 percent accuracy. You must describe the specific
equipment used to make measurements at your facility and how that
equipment is periodically calibrated. You must also explain, document,
and maintain written procedures for determining the accuracy of the
measurements and make these written procedures available to your
permitting authority upon request. You must determine, record, and
maintain a record of the accuracy of the measuring systems before the
beginning of your initial compliance test and during each subsequent
quarter of affected source operation.
    (f) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected
source in pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap to determine initial
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1. Sum the mercury
mass emissions (in pounds) from all BOPF Group units calculated using
Equation 1 of this section. Divide that sum by the sum of the total
amount of steel scrap charged to the BOPFs (in tons).

0
14. Section 63.7831 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through
(6) and (f)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7831  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) * * *
    (4) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, ongoing
operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7)
and (8). After January 11, 2021 for each such source, and after July
13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after August 16, ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7) and (8);
    (5) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, ongoing data
quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec.  63.8(d). After January 11, 2021 for each such
source, and after July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019,
ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d) except for the requirements
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans referenced in Sec.
63.8(d)(3). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures
on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2);
    (6) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, ongoing
recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec.  63.10(c)(1) through (14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
After January 11, 2021 for each such source, and after July 13, 2020
for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019, ongoing recordkeeping
and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of
Sec.  63.10(c)(1) through (14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i);
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14). You may
install, operate, and maintain other types of bag leak detection
systems in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.7833 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(3) and adding
paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7833  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, in
the case of an exceedance of the hourly average opacity operating limit
for an electrostatic precipitator, measurements of the hourly average
opacity based on visible emission observations in accordance with EPA
Method 9 (in appendix A-4 to part 60) may be taken to evaluate the
effectiveness of corrective action. ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (i) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (h) If you are demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission
limits in Table 1 of this section for your BOPF Groups through
performance testing, you must conduct mercury performance tests in
accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.7821(e) and 63.7825 and calculate

the emissions from each new and existing affected source in pounds of
mercury per ton of steel scrap to determine compliance with the mercury
emission limits in Table 1. Sum the mercury mass emissions (in pounds)
from all BOPF Group units calculated using Equation 1 of Sec.  63.7825.
Divide that sum by the sum of the total amount of steel scrap charged
to the BOPFs (in tons).
    (i) If you are demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission
limits in Table 1 of this section for your BOPF Groups by certifying
participation in the NVMSRP or another EPA-approved mercury program, or
by using scrap that does not contain mercury switches, you must obtain
and certify your use of steel scrap per Sec.  63.7791(c), (d), or (e),
as applicable, and Sec.  63.7841(b)(11) to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the standard.

0
16. Section 63.7835 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7835  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

    Except as provided in Sec.  63.7833(g), you must report each
instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation in Sec.
63.7790 that applies to you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each instance in which
you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.
63.7800 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the
requirements in Sec.  63.7841.
    (a) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (b) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (c) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.7810(d), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (d) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
before January 11, 2021, consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e). After January
11, 2021 for such sources, and after July 13, 2020 for new and
reconstructed sources which commence construction or reconstruction
after August 16, 2019, the exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction in Sec.  63.6(e) no longer apply.

0
17. Section 63.7840 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e)
introductory text, and (e)(2) and adding paragraphs (f) through (h) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.7840  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1). For the first mercury compliance test in
the BOPF Group for anyone sequence of tests, you must include a
schedule of all subsequent tests in the BOPF Group in the test series.
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit
a notification of compliance according to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii), except
that for the purposes of submitting the notification of compliance
status for BOPF Group mercury testing, the performance test shall be
considered complete when the final unit or control device in the BOPF
Group in the sequence is tested.
* * * * *
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the summary of performance test results, before the
close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of
the performance test according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2).
    (f) The notification of compliance status required by Sec. Sec.
63.9(b) and (h) and 63.7826(c) must include each applicable
certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, regarding the mercury
requirements, as applicable, in Sec.  63.7791(c) through (e).
    (1) ``This facility participates in and purchases scrap only from
scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the EPA Administrator, in accordance
with Sec.  63.7791(c) or (e)''; or
    (2) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that
does not contain mercury switches, in accordance with Sec.
63.7791(d).''
    (g) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results
of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. Where applicable, you
may assert a claim of EPA system outage, in accordance with Sec.
63.7841(e), or force majeure, in accordance with Sec.  63.7841(f), for
failure to timely comply with this requirement.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's
ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (g) of this section.

    (h) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined
in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the results of the performance
evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (3) of this section. Where applicable, you may assert a claim
of EPA system outage, in accordance with Sec.  63.7841(e), or force
majeure, in accordance with Sec.  63.7841(f), for failure to timely
comply with this requirement.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (h) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in this
paragraph (h).

0
18. Section 63.7841 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(7)
introductory text, (b)(7)(ii), (b)(8) introductory text, and
(b)(8)(ii), (iv), and (vi);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(9) through (13);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (g) and revising it; and
0
e. Adding new paragraph (d) and paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7841  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and,
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (13) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced on or before August 16,
2019, before January 11, 2021, if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent
with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance
report must include the information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i). A startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan and the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i) is not required after January 11, 2021.
* * * * *
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec.  63.7790
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system (including a CPMS, COMS, or CEMS) to comply with an
emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must contain
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, the
information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, and the
information in (b)(13) of this section. This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    (ii) Information on the duration and cause of deviations (including
unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the corrective action
taken.
* * * * *
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section, the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section, and the information in (b)(13) of this
section. This includes periods of malfunction.
* * * * *
    (ii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a malfunction or during another
period.
* * * * *
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes.
* * * * *
    (9) Any deviation from the requirements in Sec.  63.7791 and the
corrective action taken. For each deviation, you must include the
information in (b)(13) of this section.
    (10) If there were no deviations from the requirements in Sec.
63.7791, a statement that there were no deviations from the
requirements during the reporting period.
    (11) If the facility demonstrates compliance with the mercury
emission limits in Table 1 through the compliance options in Sec.
63.7791(c), (d), or (e), the report must contain the applicable
statement in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section, as
applicable.
    (i) ``This facility participates in and purchases scrap only from
scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the EPA Administrator, in accordance
with Sec.  63.7791(c) or (e)''; or
    (ii) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that
does not contain mercury switches, in accordance with Sec.
63.7791(d).''
    (12) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16,
2019, before January 11, 2021, for each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan you must submit an
immediate startup, shutdown and malfunction report. Unless the
Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of
reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report according to
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. An immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report is not required after January 11,
2021.
    (13) Beginning on January 11, 2021 if you failed to meet an
applicable standard, the compliance report must

include the start date, start time, and duration of each failure. For
each failure, the compliance report must include a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (c) Use of CEDRI template. Beginning on January 11, 2021 or 180
days after the date the reporting template becomes available in CEDRI,
whichever is later, submit all subsequent reports following the
procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) CEDRI submission. If you are required to submit reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
    (e) CDX outage. If you are required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To
assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (f) Claim of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (g) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to part 70 or 71 of
this chapter, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart
in the semiannual monitoring report required by Sec.
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter. If you
submit a compliance report for an affected source along with, or as
part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by Sec.
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, and the
compliance report includes all the required information concerning
deviations from any emission limitation, standard, or operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance
report satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report
deviations from permit requirements for an affected source to your
permitting authority.

0
19. Section 63.7842 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(3) and paragraph (a)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.7842  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
before January 11, 2021, the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for a period of five
years. A

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after January
11, 2021.
    (3) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (4) Records of the actions taken to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec.  63.7810(d), and any corrective actions taken to
return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Previous (that is, superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2), with the program of
corrective action included in the plan.
* * * * *
    (e) If you are demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 1 through Sec.  63.7791(c), you must keep records to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements for mercury in Sec.
63.7791(c) as applicable. If you are demonstrating compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 through Sec.  63.7791(d), you must
keep records documenting compliance with Sec.  63.7791(d) for scrap
that does not contain mercury switches. If you are demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 through Sec.
63.7791(e), 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 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.

0
20. Section 63.7851 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7851  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.

0
21. Section 63.7852 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``basic oxygen process
furnace group'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``deviation''; and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``mercury switch'',
``motor vehicle'', ``motor vehicle scrap'', ``opening'', ``post-
consumer steel scrap'', ``pre-consumer steel scrap'', ``scrap
provider'', ``shredded motor vehicle scrap'', ``specialty metal
scrap'', and ``steel scrap''.
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  63.7852  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Basic oxygen process furnace group means the collection of BOPF
shop steelmaking operating units and their control devices including
the BOPF primary emission control system, BOPF secondary control
system, ladle metallurgy units, and hot metal transfer, desulfurization
and slag skimming units that are operating at the time of each mercury
test sequence. In the case of duplicate units in the BOPF Group, the
BOPF Group for purposes of this rule means only those units operating
at the time of the test sequence. See related definitions in this
section for ``primary emissions,'' ``primary emission control system,''
``secondary emissions,'' and ``secondary emission control system.''
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which 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 emission limitation
(including operating limits), standard, or operation and maintenance
requirement;
    (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 emission limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
    Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed
in a motor vehicle.
    Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and
usually operated with rubber tires for use on roads and highways.
    Motor vehicle scrap means post-consumer scrap from discarded
automotive vehicles, in whole or in part, 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 and bumpers, which do not contain mercury
switches.
    Opening means any roof monitor, vent, door, window, hole, crack or
other conduit that allows gas to escape to the atmosphere from a blast
furnace casthouse or BOPF shop.
    Post-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is composed of
materials made of steel that were purchased by households or by
commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities in their role as
end-users of the product and which can no longer be used for its
intended purpose.
    Pre-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is left over from
industrial or manufacturing processes and which is subsequently
recycled as scrap. Other terms used to describe this scrap are new,
home, run-around, prompt-industrial, and return scrap.
* * * * *
    Scrap provider means the company or person (including a broker) who
contracts directly with an integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility to provide steel scrap. Scrap processors, such as shredder
operators or vehicle dismantlers, who do not sell scrap directly to an
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility are not scrap
providers.
* * * * *
    Shredded motor vehicle scrap means post-consumer scrap from
discarded automotive vehicles that has been processed through a
shredder.
* * * * *
    Specialty metal scrap means scrap where the only materials from
motor vehicles in the scrap are materials (such as certain exhaust
systems) recovered for their specialty alloy content (including, but
not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys), and,
based on the nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, the scrap
is not expected to contain mercury switches.
* * * * *
    Steel scrap means pre-consumer and post-consumer discarded steel
that is processed by scrap providers for resale (post-consumer) or used
on-site (pre-consumer or run-around scrap from within a facility or
company). Post-consumer steel scrap may or may not

contain motor vehicle scrap, depending on the type of scrap.