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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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

RIN 2060-AM71

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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

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

ADDRESSES:  The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.  All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources:  Electric Arc Furnace
Steelmaking Facilities Docket at the EPA Docket and Information Center
in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number (919)
541-3207, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline.	The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I.	General Information

A.	Does this action apply to me?

B.	Where can I get a copy of this document?

C.  Judicial Review

II. Background Information for the Final Rule

III.  Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A.  Applicability and Compliance Date

B.  Final MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury

C.  Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD Vessels

D.  Final GACT Standards for Scrap Management

E.  Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

IV.  Summary of Comments and Responses

A.  Basis for Area Source Standards

B.  Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury

C.  Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury

D.  Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap to Control HAP Other than Mercury

E. Miscellaneous Comments

V.	Impacts of the Final Rule

VI.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. 	Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

B.	Paperwork Reduction Act

C.	Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E.	Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

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

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

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

I.	National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

K.  Congressional Review Act

I.  General Information

A.  Does this action apply to me?

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

Category	NAICS code1	Examples of regulated entities

Industry. . . . .

	331111

	Steel mills with electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities that are
area sources.

1 North American Industry Classification System.

	This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action.  To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.10680
of subpart YYYYY (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources:  Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities).  If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B.  Where can I get a copy of this document?

	In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).  Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address:      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ .  The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C.  Judicial Review

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

	Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.”  This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration,
“[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that
it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for
public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule.”  Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us
should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy
to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law
Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.

II.  Background Information for the Final Rule

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

	Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources "which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions
of hazardous air pollutants."  As explained in the preamble to the
proposed NESHAP, we are issuing standards based on GACT for the control
of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel
from area source EAF steelmaking facilities.

	Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and subject to standards
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), categories of sources
accounting for not less than 90 percent of emissions of each of seven
specific HAP:  alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter,
hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls,
2,3,7,9-tetrachlorodibenzofurans, and
2,3,7,8-tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin.  Standards established under CAA
section 112(d)(2) must reflect performance of MACT.  On September 20,
2007 (72 FR 53817), we added EAF steelmaking facilities that are area
sources to this list of source categories under CAA section 112(c)(6)
solely on the basis of mercury emissions.  As discussed in the preamble
to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) for mercury emissions from all EAF steelmaking
facilities that are area sources of HAP.  The notice also announced a
revision to the area source category list developed under our Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).  The
revision changed the name of the listed area source category,
“Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing Electric Arc Furnaces
(EAF)” to “Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities.”

III.  Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A.  Applicability and Compliance Date

	The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing EAF steelmaking
facility that is an area source of HAP.  The owner or operator of an
existing area source that does not have to install or modify emissions
control equipment to meet the opacity limit for fugitive emissions must
comply with all applicable rule requirements no later than [INSERT DATE
6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The owner or
operator of an existing area source that must install or modify emission
control equipment to meet the opacity limit for fugitive emissions may
request a compliance date for the opacity limit that is no later than
[INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the
additional time is needed.  We revised the compliance date from 2 years
to 3 years if a facility can demonstrate the additional time is needed
to install controls after considering comments on the upgrades that some
facilities may need to meet the opacity limit.  The owner or operator of
a new affected source must comply with all applicable rule requirements
by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] (if the startup
date is on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]) or upon startup (if the startup date is after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]).

B.  Final MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury

	The final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention and
require an EAF owner or operator who melts scrap from motor vehicles
either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle scrap only
from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved program for the
removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the alternative requirements
described below.  EAF facilities participating in an approved program
must maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting
the scrap provider’s participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program.  A compliance option requires the EAF facility to
prepare and operate pursuant to an approved site-specific plan that
includes specifications to the scrap provider that mercury switches must
be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an efficiency comparable to that
of the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program (see below).  An
equivalent compliance option is provided for facilities that do not
utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury switches.  We have
added a new provision to the final rule for scrap that does not contain
motor vehicle scrap to require certification and records documenting
that the scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap.

We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose to
comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who
participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been
approved by the Administrator.  The NVMSRP is an approved program under
this final standard.  In response to comments, we are also identifying
the Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal Program mandated by Maine State law
as an EPA-approved program.  Facilities choosing to use an EPA-approved
program as a compliance option are required to assume all of the
responsibilities for EAF steelmakers as described in the NVMSRP MOU.
The NVMSRP is described in detail in section III.D.1 of the preamble to
the proposed rule.  In response to comments, we are including in the
final rule provisions for EPA-approved programs that specify certain
responsibilities that the EAF steelmaking industry agreed to in signing
the MOU, including developing a plan that demonstrates how the facility
is participating in the program, documenting communication and outreach
to scrap providers, and corroboration to ensure mercury switches are
being removed.

EAF facilities may also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating
in other programs if they obtain EPA approval of the program.  To do so,
the facility owner or operator must submit a request to the
Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing scrap from scrap
providers that are participating in another switch removal program and
demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that the program meets
the following specified criteria:  (1) there is an outreach program that
informs automobile dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury
switches and provides training and guidance on switch removal, (2) the
program has a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury
switches, and (3) the program sponsor must submit annual progress
reports on the number of switches removed and the estimated number of
motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a percentage of switches
removed is derivable).

EAF facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers
that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal
program have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in conformance with
a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury switches.  The
facility’s scrap specifications must include a requirement for the
removal of mercury switches, and the plan must include provisions for
obtaining assurance from scrap providers that mercury switches have been
removed.  The plan must be submitted to the permitting authority for
approval and demonstrate how the facility will comply with specific
requirements that include:  (1) a means of communicating to scrap
purchasers and scrap providers the need to obtain or provide motor
vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have been removed and the need
to ensure the proper disposal of the mercury switches, (2) provisions
for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that motor vehicle scrap
provided to the facility meets the scrap specifications, (3) provisions
for periodic inspection, or other means of corroboration to ensure that
scrap providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4)
provisions for taking corrective actions if needed, and (5) requiring
each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an estimate of the number
of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle scrap sent to the
facility during the previous year and the basis for the estimate.  The
permitting authority may request documentation or additional information
from the owner or operator at any time.  The site-specific plan must
establish a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury
switches.  All documented and verifiable mercury-containing components
removed from motor vehicle scrap counts towards the 80 percent goal.  We
have clarified in the final rule that the owner or operator must operate
according to the plan during the review and approval process, must
address any deficiencies noted by the permitting authority within 60
days, and may request changes to the plan.

	An equivalent compliance option is provided for EAF owners or operators
who do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury.  The
option requires the facility to certify that the only materials they are
charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for their
specialty alloy, such as chromium in certain exhaust systems.

C.  Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD Vessels

	The final rule requires the owner or operator to install, operate, and
maintain capture systems for EAF and AOD vessels that convey the
collected emissions to a venturi scrubber or baghouse for the removal of
PM.  We are establishing separate emissions limits for new and existing
EAF steelmaking facilities that produce less than 150,000 tpy of
stainless or specialty steel, and for larger, non-specialty EAF
steelmaking facilities.  The small facilities are required to comply
with a PM emissions limit of 0.8 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of steel
for each control device serving an EAF or AOD vessel.  Alternatively,
small specialty producers may elect to comply with a PM limit of 0.0052
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf).  The final rule also
includes an opacity limit of 6 percent for melt shop emissions.  All
other EAF steelmaking facilities (both existing and new) are required to
meet a PM limit of 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
for emissions from a control device for an EAF or AOD vessel.  The
opacity of emissions from melt shops from these sources is limited to 6
percent.  We have clarified in the final rule that the emission limits
apply to AOD vessels and do not apply to ladle metallurgy operations.

	Performance tests are required for each emissions source to demonstrate
initial compliance with the PM and opacity limits.  Provisions are
included in the rule for conducting the tests.  The owner or operator of
an existing EAF steelmaking facility is allowed to certify initial
compliance with the emissions limits if a previous test was conducted
during the past 5 years using the methods and procedures in the rule and
either no process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or
operator can demonstrate that the test results, with or without
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

	All EAF steelmaking facilities are required to have or obtain a title V
permit.  We have clarified in the final rule that sources that already
have a title V permit are not required to obtain a new title V permit as
a result of this area source rule.  However, sources that already have a
title V permit must include the requirements of this rule through a
permit reopening or at renewal according to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 70 and the title V permit program.  See 40 CFR 70.7(f).  The final
rule requires each EAF steelmaking facility to monitor the capture
system, PM control device, and melt shop; maintain records; and submit
reports according to the CAM requirements in 40 CFR part 64.  The
existing part 64 rule requires the owner or operator to establish
appropriate ranges for selected indicators for each emissions unit
(i.e., operating limits) such that operation within the ranges will
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the emissions
limitations or standards.

	The CAM rule requires the owner or operator to submit certain
monitoring information to the permitting authority for approval.  This
information includes:  (1) the indicators to be monitored; (2) the
ranges or designated conditions for such indicators, or the process by
which such indicator ranges or designated conditions will be
established; (3) performance criteria for the monitoring; and if
applicable, (4) the indicator ranges and performance criteria for a
CEMS, COMS, or predictive emissions monitoring system.  The owner or
operator also must submit a justification for the proposed elements of
the monitoring control device (and process and capture system, if
applicable) and operating parameter data obtained during the conduct of
the applicable compliance or performance test.

	If monitoring indicates that the unit is operating outside of the
acceptable range established in its permit, the owner or operator must
return the operation to within the established range consistent with 40
CFR 64.7(d).

D.  Final GACT Standards for Scrap Management

	In addition to meeting PM and opacity limits reflecting GACT, we are
also requiring EAF facilities to restrict the use of certain scrap or
follow a pollution prevention plan for scrap inspection and selection
that minimizes the amount of specific contaminants in the scrap.

	The requirements are based on two pollution prevention approaches
depending on the type of scrap that is used, and a facility may have
some scrap subject to one approach and other scrap subject to the other
approach.  One provision is for scrap that does not contain certain
contaminants and simply prohibits the processing of scrap containing
these contaminants (restricted scrap).  Compliance is demonstrated by a
certification that the scrap does not contain the contaminants.  This
scrap management approach is expected to be most useful to stainless and
specialty steel producers with stringent scrap specifications that do
not permit the use of motor vehicle scrap and scrap containing free
organic liquids.  The other approach for scrap that may contain certain
contaminants is more prescriptive and requires a pollution prevention
plan, scrap specifications, and procedures for determining that these
requirements are met.  This pollution prevention approach was developed
primarily for carbon steel producers that accept motor vehicle scrap and
many other types of ferrous scrap.

	Under the restricted scrap provision, the plant owner or operator must
agree to restrict the use of certain scrap, including metallic scrap
from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings,
machine shop borings, transformers and capacitors containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-containing components,
chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids.  The restriction on
lead-containing components does not apply to the production of leaded
steel (where lead is obviously needed for production).

	The other scrap management provision requires the plant owner or
operator to prepare a pollution prevention plan for metallic scrap
selection and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics,
lead (except for the production of leaded steel), and free organic
liquids.  This plan must be submitted to the permitting authority for
approval.  The owner or operator is required to keep a copy of the plan
onsite and train plant personnel with materials acquisition or
inspection duties in the plan’s requirements.

	The plan must include specifications for scrap materials to be depleted
(to the extent practicable) of lead-containing components (except for
the production of leaded steel), undrained used oil filters, chlorinated
plastics, and free organic liquids.  The plan must also contain
procedures for determining if these requirements are met (e.g., visual
inspection or periodic audits of scrap suppliers) and procedures for
taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not within
specifications.

E.  Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

	Area sources subject to the requirements for EAF and AOD vessels are
subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the part 64
CAM rule.  The general recordkeeping requirements of the part 64 rule
directs the owner or operator to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for title V operating permits in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii),
which require records of analyses, measurements, and sampling data.  The
part 64 rule also requires the owner or operator to maintain records of
monitoring data, monitor performance data, corrective actions taken, any
written quality improvement plan (QIP), any activities undertaken to
implement a QIP, and other supporting information required by the part
64 rule (such as data used to document the adequacy of monitoring, or
records of monitoring maintenance or corrective actions).

	The general reporting requirements of part 64 require the owner or
operator to submit monitoring reports to the permitting authority in
accordance with the requirements for facilities with title V operating
permits.  The title V reporting requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 40
CFR 71.6(c)(1) include a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports,
and annual compliance certifications.  The part 64 reporting
requirements specify that the 6-month monitoring report include:  (1)
summary information on the number, duration and cause (including unknown
cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, as applicable, and
the corrective actions taken; (2) summary information on the number,
duration and cause (including unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor
downtime incidents (other than downtime associated with zero and span or
other daily calibration checks, if applicable); and (3) a description of
the actions taken to implement a QIP during the reporting period.  Upon
completion of a QIP, the owner or operator must include in the next
summary report documentation that the implementation of the plan has
been completed and reduced the likelihood of similar levels of
excursions or exceedances occurring.

	All EAF steelmaking facilities subject to this NESHAP are also subject
to certain specified requirements of the NESHAP general provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A).  The general provisions include requirements
for initial notifications; startup, shutdown, and malfunction records
and reports; recordkeeping; and semiannual excess emissions and
monitoring system performance reports.  The information required in
these records and reports is similar to the information required by the
CAM rule (40 CFR part 64) and the operating permits rules (40 CFR parts
70 and 71).

	The NESHAP also includes specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for area source facilities subject to requirements for
control of contaminants from scrap.  The area source facilities are
required to keep records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
for their pollution prevention plan for minimizing the amount of
chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids charged to a
furnace or for the use of only restricted scrap and the site-specific
plan for mercury or any of the mercury compliance options.

	As noted above, facilities subject to the site-specific plan for
mercury are required to keep records and submit semiannual reports on
the number of mercury switches removed by the scrap providers or the
weight of mercury recovered from those switches, an estimate of the
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the
recovered mercury switches were managed at RCRA-permitted facilities.
We have clarified that the requested information can be aggregated in
the semiannual report and does not have to reported separately for every
scrap shipment.  Facilities participating in an EPA-approved program for
switch removal must keep records that identify their scrap providers and
document that they participate in an approved switch removal program.
The final rule requires more extensive records for a site-specific plan
than for an approved program because extensive recordkeeping, reporting,
and measurement of success are already required for approval of such a
removal program, the NVMSRP being the prime example.

	All facilities subject to the requirements for the control of
contaminants from scrap are required to submit semiannual reports
according to the requirements in §63.10(e) of the general provisions.
The report must identify any deviation from the rule requirements and
the corrective action taken.

IV.  Summary of Comments and Responses

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

A.  Basis for Area Source Standards

Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA’s decision to issue GACT
standards for mercury pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), is arbitrary and
capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue
GACT standards.  The commenter further stated that EPA’s proposed GACT
for mercury emissions from EAFs does not satisfy section 112(d)(5) of
the CAA because EPA is relying on a voluntary program to keep switches
that contain mercury out of the EAF rather than evaluating potential
reduction measures that are commercially available.

Response:  The commenter evidently misread the proposed rule.  The
proposed standard for mercury is based on MACT and is not based on GACT.
 As we explained at proposal (72 FR 53816), EAF steelmaking facilities
were listed under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on the basis of mercury
emissions, and we proposed standards for mercury under CAA section
112(d)(2) that reflect the performance of MACT.  We identified the MACT
floor (72 FR 53822) as the pollution prevention approach of using scrap
only from scrap providers that are first removing mercury switches
pursuant to an EPA-approved program.  We also evaluated more stringent
beyond-the-floor options for MACT (72 FR 53824).  Additional discussion
of our MACT determination is provided in section IV.B.1 of this
preamble.  Since the commenter did not address any aspect of the actual
proposal, further response is unnecessary.

	If, against all natural readings, the comment is construed as stating
that EPA must first provide a rationale as to why it is not issuing a
MACT standard before it can issue a GACT standard under CAA section
112(d)(5) for HAP other than mercury, we disagree with the commenter for
the reasons set forth in the final rules for Acrylic and Modacrylic
Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing:
Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving (72 FR
38880, July 16, 2007).  We reiterate that we do not view the commenter
as having raised an issue with respect to GACT vs. MACT for HAP other
than mercury; however, we provide this response in an abundance of
caution to the extent the comment is, in some way, construed in this
manner.

B.  Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury

We determined at proposal that the MACT floor and MACT for mercury
emissions was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury
switches from end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and
shredded for use in EAFs.  MACT would be implemented by EAF owners or
operators purchasing scrap only from scrap providers that were
participating in an EPA-approved program for switch removal, operating
pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan (of equal effectiveness
to an EPA-approved program) that ensured scrap providers had removed
mercury switches, or by not melting scrap from end-of-life vehicles.  We
further proposed that the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery
Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA-approved program.
However, we received several comments questioning how the effectiveness
of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and suggestions for
improving aspects of the rule related to program transparency,
enforceability, and implementability.  We have incorporated several of
these suggested improvements into the final rule, and we address these
comments and describe these improvements in detail in section IV.B.3 of
this preamble.  The improvements include developing and maintaining a
plan showing how the facility is participating in the approved program,
documentation of communication to suppliers of the need for them to
remove mercury switches, or other means of corroboration by the facility
to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal procedures.  We note
here that the Administrator is committed to evaluating the effectiveness
of the approved program on a continuing basis and is a party to the
agreement that established the NMVSRP.  The parties (including the
Administrator) recently reviewed the program’s effectiveness after 1
year.  The 1 year review showed reasonable progress, with recycling
programs now available in every State.  The national program was
slightly ahead of the schedule projected for start-up.  We now expect
switch removals to steadily increase over the next year as these
programs begin to fully operate.  If the Administrator finds the program
to be ineffective at the next scheduled review under the MOU, or at any
time as provided in the rule, the Administrator may disapprove the
program in whole or in part (e.g., for a particular State), and
participation in the program would no longer be a compliance option,
leaving EAF owners or operators obliged to develop site-specific
programs for EPA approval in order to meet the requirements of this
rule.  Under the site-specific program, it would fall on the EAF owner
or operator to provide a detailed accounting of switches removed and
vehicles processed from all of their scrap providers to enable the
Administrator or permitting authority to evaluate whether the facility
is in compliance with the switch removal requirements.  The somewhat
lower documentation feature of the NVMSRP provides a strong incentive to
all of the parties involved in switch removal to make every effort to
ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a continuing basis.  However, if the
national program were to prove unsatisfactory and be subsequently
disapproved as a compliance option, the burden would be on the EAF owner
or operator to implement a site-specific approach.  In either case
(whether a national program or site-specific program), we have codified
an approach that provides accountability and measures of effectiveness
as described in detail in section IV.B.3 of this preamble.

We also considered a standard based on the performance of activated
carbon injection (ACI) with continuous monitoring for mercury as a
beyond-the-floor option, and as we discuss in detail in section IV.B.1
of this preamble, we rejected this option for several reasons.  In
summary, ACI has not been demonstrated for EAFs, its effectiveness is
highly uncertain due in large part to the extreme variability in mercury
loading from this batch operation (e.g., it is difficult to design and
estimate the capacity of the ACI system that would be needed to handle
the highly variable loading of mercury), and it would likely result in
the landfilling of large quantities of hazardous waste (EAF dust) that
is currently recycled (pursuant to RCRA subtitle C standards) to recover
its zinc content.  In addition, it would be costly, and the continuous
monitoring that would be needed to assess the effectiveness of ACI is
not feasible for the majority of EAF facilities because they have
baghouses without stacks.  (See 72 FR 53817.)

1.  Emission Controls and an Emission Limit for Mercury

Comment:  One commenter stated that the proposed standard for mercury
does not satisfy the requirements of section 112(d)(5) of the CAA
because EPA is relying solely upon a voluntary program to keep switches
from cars out of the EAF rather than evaluating the potential reduction
measures that are commercially available.  One commenter noted that
EPA’s calculated cost effectiveness of $11,000/pound (lb) of mercury
for ACI is similar to the cost effectiveness anticipated by EPA for
municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators, and it is
well below the control costs expected from implementation of the utility
boiler Clean Air Mercury Rule – all rules where a technology-based
standard for mercury is based upon performance of ACI.  The commenter
notes that without further analysis to determine the non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, it appears
that ACI is a cost effective control for mercury emissions and was
rejected by EPA prematurely.  Several commenters recommended that EPA
require controls beyond the vehicle switch removal program.  One of
these commenters stated that ACI is widely used on other combustion
sources (e.g., municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators,
and hazardous waste incinerators) and that ACI has already been
successfully applied to iron and steel melters in Europe.  The commenter
stated that coal-fired boilers use ACI successfully, and no
circumstances specific to EAFs have been identified that would indicate
that EAFs could not use the same technology efficaciously.  The
commenter noted that the State of New Jersey estimated the cost to
implement source separation and to install ACI on an existing baghouse
to be less than $1.80 per ton of scrap processed.  The commenter claimed
that the cost of compliance is minimal compared to the price of a ton of
steel ($360 to $780/ton) or a ton of scrap ($300/ton) and is not
expected to cause any facility to close.  The commenter believes these
cost estimates indicate that add-on controls for mercury for EAFs are
cost effective when the impacts of mercury emissions on human health and
the environment are weighed.

Several commenters requested that EPA include a mercury emission limit
and monitoring strategy for EAFs rather than relying solely on a
voluntary program.  Three commenters said it is important to establish
an emission limit and require testing for mercury because 40 to 50
percent of the mercury comes from non-automobile sources and would not
be removed by the switch removal program.  One commenter requested that
EPA establish a mercury emission limit, require appropriate testing to
verify compliance, and require add-on emission controls if the emission
limit is not met.  Another commenter suggested that EPA set a mercury
emission standard that uses a tiered approach towards demonstrating
compliance, e.g., sources that emit less than a certain amount of
mercury per year may be allowed to comply with the pollution prevention
standard along with a mercury emissions monitoring requirement.  The
commenter continues by stating that more stringent mercury monitoring
should be required for more significant mercury emitters with the
understanding that if a certain level is not reached within a given time
frame (e.g., three years), the source must install mercury emissions
controls and implement associated monitoring.  Another commenter
requested a protective backstop for the MACT requirement, including
advanced mercury emissions removal technology and continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) for facilities that do not meet the mercury
pollution prevention standards.

One commenter stated that two EAFs in Michigan have mercury emission
limits and must perform stack testing.  This commenter asks that if EPA
determines that an emission limit is not practical for the area source
standard, EPA should consider a percent reduction standard similar to
what is required in the State of New Jersey (75 percent).  The commenter
asks that measures and targets be established and consequences
identified if targets are not achieved.  The commenter said measures and
targets include an estimate of mercury-containing devices collected,
inlet and outlet stack testing, and baghouse dust analysis to confirm
reduced mercury inputs and emissions.  The commenter stated that
identifying spikes in the mercury concentration of baghouse dust
provides information to conduct additional quality control on scrap
shipments.

Two commenters claimed that ACI is not a demonstrated technology for
EAFs and that there is a great deal of uncertainty about its potential
effectiveness due in large part to the high variability of mercury
emission levels.  The commenters also stated that the use of ACI would
have a negative effect on recycling EAF dust because the mercury in the
dust makes it necessary to landfill the dust instead of recycling it.
The commenters agreed with EPA’s pollution prevention approach and
stated that EPA properly explained the technological and economic
feasibility difficulties associated with developing and enforcing a
mercury emission limit for EAFs, including the fact that continuous
monitoring for mercury from EAFs is impractical.

Response:  At proposal, we determined that the MACT floor for mercury
was a pollution prevention approach based on preventing mercury switches
from entering the EAF.  We also explained at proposal that standards
requiring pollution prevention were not work practices under section
112(h), and even assuming for the sake of argument that they were work
practices, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions limit
for mercury within the meaning of section 112(h) (72 FR 53817).  We
received no adverse comments on or challenges to our MACT floor
determination or our conclusion that pollution prevention standards were
not work practices under section 112(h).

We evaluated ACI as a beyond-the-floor control option for mercury
emissions and rejected the option for several reasons (72 FR 53824).  We
also considered the feasibility of establishing an emission limit for
mercury and explained in detail why we chose instead an approach based
on a pollution prevention standard (72 FR 53816).  We disagree that the
proposed standard for mercury relies solely on a voluntary program to
keep mercury switches out of the scrap supply.  First, there is nothing
voluntary about the obligations of EAF owners or operators under the
rule.  They are not in compliance with the rule unless they obtain scrap
from dealers participating in an effective program to remove mercury
switches.  Moreover, the standard contains detailed requirements for
preparing and operating a pollution prevention plan that must be
approved by the Administrator, specific criteria that will be used by
the Administrator to review and approve plans, criteria for approval of
switch removal programs to ensure they are effective, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements (including progress reports).  The
Administrator can evaluate the success of an approved switch removal
program based on progress reports that provide the number of mercury
switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and the
percent of switches removed.  Based on this evaluation, the
Administrator may subsequently disapprove a previously approved switch
removal program or a site-specific plan.  An example of an existing
switch recovery program that has been documented as successful is the
one implemented by the State of Maine, which was one of the first such
programs and was in place in advance of the NVMSRP.  The Maine program
is now fully operational and reported a recovery rate of over 90 percent
for mercury switches in 2006.

	The commenters provided no new information or additional facts with
respect to ACI that were not considered and addressed at proposal when
we evaluated it as a beyond-the-floor option (72 FR 53824, 53825) and
concluded that:

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

We emphasize again that ACI was not rejected as a beyond-the-floor
option solely on the basis of cost effectiveness.  We concluded that ACI
has not been demonstrated for EAFs and that there is a great deal of
uncertainty in design (e.g., the carbon capacity that would be needed to
treat a highly variable inlet loading of mercury) and potential
performance (i.e., how much mercury would actually be removed), and
hence of the actual mercury emission reductions that might be achieved.
We also considered and discussed the adverse energy and solid waste
impacts.

2.  Monitoring for Mercury

Comment:  Several commenters stated that stack monitoring for mercury
emissions from EAFs was needed to assess the effectiveness of the NVMSRP
and other programs.  These commenters believe it is important to have
information on the actual emissions, the emissions impact of pollution
prevention measures, and an indication of need for additional actions
that may be needed to further reduce mercury emissions.  One commenter
stated that CEMS are essential to establish that the voluntary switch
removal program reduces emissions.  Another commenter requested that the
monitoring program include a requirement to test emissions within 6
months of publication of the final rule to establish a baseline for each
facility.

One commenter stated that although the proposal states that no feasible
methods of emissions testing exist for any EAF facility (e.g.,
continuous emissions monitoring), there are monitoring technologies that
are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry.  The commenter
noted that batch process emissions are tested and monitored in many
industrial sectors, and EPA has established emission standards for many
batch processes without requiring the use of continuous monitors,
including Pesticide Active Ingredient Manufacturing and Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing.  The commenter also noted that EPA has
recently promulgated the “sorbent tube” method for sampling stack
gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75, appendix K).  The
commenter believes that because this method of monitoring mercury is
capable of sampling flue gases over any period of time (hours or even
days), there appears to be little impediment to using this method to
sample “batch” processes like those at an EAF.  Another commenter
also noted that CEMS are available and in use at other types of
mercury-emitting facilities.

One commenter stated that data from frequent monitoring will be
essential to determine if actual reductions in mercury emissions have
been achieved in order to determine whether the “sunset” of the
pollution prevention standard in 2017 should be allowed to occur.  One
commenter was concerned that if there are no mercury emission standards,
it may be very difficult for EPA to conduct its residual risk
determination.  The commenter wonders how EPA will calculate residual
risk when there has been no attempt to establish a baseline of mercury
emissions, determine the effectiveness of the switch removal program, or
measure emissions after controls are implemented.  One commenter stated
that at least one steel mill of which they are aware has reported higher
levels of mercury emissions since starting to participate in the NVMSRP.
 The commenter notes that frequent monitoring is needed to determine
whether the program is effective.

One commenter suggested that EPA require facilities to keep records of
the sources of scrap metal entering the facility in a manner that allows
correlation of scrap sources with elevated mercury emissions and that
these records be available to the Agency and accessible for public
review.

Response:  At proposal, we considered the use of CEMS for mercury (72 FR
53817):

We therefore examined the technological and economic feasibility of
continuous monitoring for mercury from these sources.  We note first
that mercury CEMS are not demonstrated for EAF, raising a threshold
question of their technical feasibility for all EAF.  Furthermore, most
EAF discharge emissions from positive pressure baghouses without stacks.
 Continuous mercury monitoring would not be technically feasible for
these EAF (i.e., stackless EAF), even assuming that mercury CEMS were
otherwise demonstrated for EAF.  This is because volumetric flow rate
and concentration would need to be determined by CEMS to measure the
mass emission rate of mercury, and without a stack, it is nearly
impossible to obtain an accurate measurement of volumetric flow rate or
to obtain representative measurements of mercury concentration in the
discharged emissions.  Indeed, EPA has previously determined that the
use of continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) was not feasible for
positive pressure baghouses without stacks for this reason.

	The commenters did not address any of these points that we made at
proposal.  After further consideration of CEMS, we continue to believe
that CEMS are not feasible for monitoring baghouses without stacks.

One commenter stated that batch processes such as EAF steelmaking could
be monitored for mercury emissions using the sorbent tube method.  We
agree that there are monitoring methods for mercury that can be used for
batch processes; however, the problem with applying CEMS or the sorbent
tube method is because of baghouses without stacks, not because
steelmaking is a batch process.  We received no other comments that
addressed, much less refuted, EPA’s view of the fundamental
shortcomings of applying mercury CEMS to EAFs without stacks that were
discussed at proposal.

We discuss in much greater detail in section IV.B.3 of this preamble the
monitoring requirements of the rule and how they are used to determine
the effectiveness of the standard.  We have developed monitoring
requirements that are appropriate for the pollution prevention standard,
and since we have concluded it is not necessary or appropriate to
establish a mercury stack emission limit, it is not appropriate and in
most cases it is infeasible to require monitoring for mercury emissions.

The lack of a mercury emission standard will not affect our ability to
conduct a residual risk assessment in the future.  We will by that time
have historical data on the effectiveness of the MACT standard, and mass
balance approaches as well as innovative methods for sampling and
analysis of sources or ambient air concentrations may provide additional
data.

We cannot directly address the commenter who claimed that one plant’s
mercury emissions had increased since joining the NVMSRP because the
commenter provided no details to substantiate the claim.  However, there
is no doubt that removal of mercury switches before motor vehicle scrap
is melted will reduce mercury emissions, whether the removal takes place
under the NVMSRP or under other switch removal programs.

3.  Effectiveness of the Pollution Prevention Standard for Mercury

Comment:  Several commenters stated that requirements to verify the
effectiveness of the NVMSRP and other switch removal programs are needed
and that accountability is not adequately addressed.  The commenters
claimed that there are no enforceable mechanisms to ensure effective
participation in or compliance with the switch removal programs and
identified the need for increased recordkeeping and reporting beyond
just participation in a switch removal program.  One commenter requested
that EPA include enforceable measures of accountability that include
consequences if the programs do not meet their goals.  Two commenters
requested that quantifiable performance measures be included to verify
the effectiveness of mercury reduction programs.  One commenter
requested written documentation and audits of program participation of
suppliers, evaluation of switch recovery rates, and mercury emissions
testing and monitoring requirements.  Another commenter suggested
incorporating verifiable measurement and accountability systems and
using some of the specific language from the MOU to make the scrap plans
accountable and enforceable.  This commenter also requested that EPA
revise the rule to include enforceable scrap specification requirements
and binding contracts with scrap suppliers (rather than a “means of
communicating”) and require recordkeeping, reporting, and
certification to assure that scrap meets specifications, as well as
contract termination in the event of deviations.  This commenter also
states that the switch removal requirements must be more than a
“goal”; they must be achieved through binding contracts establishing
removal requirements and effective tracking, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.  Two commenters noted that since there are no
effective performance measures, goals, or consequences for failure to
remove switches, there is no strong incentive for the NVMSRP to continue
after the initial funding has been expended.

Two commenters requested achievement of specific switch recovery
percentages as the rule is implemented.  They suggest a ramped capture
rate of 30 percent for year one, 50 percent for year two, and 80 percent
in year three.  The commenters believe it is essential that the rule
require increasing mercury switch capture rates so that a rate of 80
percent or more is achieved within two to three years.

One commenter stated that two studies of switch removal and mercury
emission reductions do not constitute evidence of a cause and effect
relationship between removal of switches and mercury reductions.  The
commenter believes that documentation based on a large number of studies
can determine the cause and effect relationship.  The commenter further
states that because no monitoring or testing of mercury emissions are
required by the proposed rule, no evidence of correlation between
amounts of mercury emitted and the quality of scrap can be demonstrated,
and there would be no evidence that the switch removal program is
working to reduce mercury emissions.

Several commenters noted that the proposed rule is silent on what
happens if the 80 percent switch removal goal is not met.  One commenter
believes the rule should include a final date when the goal is to be met
and identify emission standards to be met as an alternative to the 80
percent removal goal.

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

Response:  The NVMSRP resulted from a two-year process of collaboration
and negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to create a
dedicated nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing switches from
end-of-life vehicles.  The stakeholders included EPA, automakers, steel
manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap recyclers, and
State agency representatives.  These stakeholders signed an MOU
detailing their respective responsibilities and commitments in the
national switch recovery effort.  This effort will result in substantial
reductions in mercury emissions from EAFs by removing the majority of
mercury from metal scrap.  In addition, it will have environmental
benefits from reducing mercury emissions from sources other than EAFs
and will reduce mercury releases to media other than air.  We disagree
with the commenter that without testing for mercury emissions, there
would be no evidence that the switch removal program is working to
reduce mercury emissions.  Many States have implemented switch removal
programs, and major environmental groups have participated in and signed
agreements supporting the programs, both of which are indications of the
participants’ belief in the ability of such programs to reduce mercury
emissions.  EPA recounts this history not to show that the Agency is
blindly accepting the negotiated agreement, but that EPA has examined
the agreement anew in light of the requirements of section 112(d) and
finds that the program resulting from that agreement meets the statutory
requirements.  The success of the program has been documented by direct
measurements of mercury in switches removed, and as of November 28,
2007, over 843,000 switches with 1,855 pounds of mercury have been
recovered.

As we stated in detail at proposal, this pollution prevention approach
was determined to be the MACT floor and MACT for reducing mercury
emissions from EAFs.  Emissions of mercury result from the melting of
scrap metal that contains mercury components.  When these components are
removed prior to charging the scrap to an EAF, the mercury emissions are
prevented.

Thousands of automobile recyclers have already joined the NVMSRP,
although not all members have yet sent in recovered switches.  (As we
discuss in more detail below, there is a lag time as dismantlers
accumulate enough switches to fill a shipping container.)  Information
on the program, including scrap suppliers who have joined and the number
of switches they have turned in to date, can be found on the End of Life
Vehicle Solutions website (  HYPERLINK "http://www.elvsolutions.org"
http://www.elvsolutions.org ).

As we discussed at proposal, there are many elements in the NVMSRP that
are designed to measure success and to evaluate its effectiveness.  One
year following the effective date of the MOU and each year thereafter,
the parties or their designees and EPA agreed to meet to review the
effectiveness of the program at the State level based upon recovery and
capture rates.  The parties to the agreement will use the results to
improve the performance of the program and to explore implementation of
a range of options in that effort.  Two and one-half years from the
inception of the program, the parties agreed to meet and review overall
program effectiveness and performance.  This review will include
analysis of the number of switches that have been collected and what
factors have contributed to program effectiveness.  The Administrator is
one of the parties committed to this review and assessment of
effectiveness, and the Administrator may disapprove the program as a
compliance option (in whole or in part) at any time based on the
assessment of effectiveness.

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

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

EAF owners or operators must develop and maintain onsite a plan
demonstrating the manner through which their facility is participating
in the EPA-approved program.  The plan must include facility-specific
implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts
coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for each facility.

EAF owners or operators must provide in the plan documentation of
direction to appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout
the scrap supply chain the need for the removal of mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles.  Upon the request of the permitting authority, the
owner or operator must provide examples of materials that are used for
outreach to suppliers, such as letters, contract language, policies for
purchasing agents, and scrap inspection protocols.

EAF owners or operators must conduct periodic inspections or provide
other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are aware of the
need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence
of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.

One commenter claimed that because no monitoring or testing for mercury
is required, there is no way to determine if the pollution prevention
approach is reducing mercury emissions.  We strongly disagree because
the number of switches or weight of mercury recovered is a direct
measure of the amount of mercury prevented from entering the
environment.  As we explained at proposal and in an earlier comment
response, it is not feasible to require continuous emission monitoring
at EAFs with baghouses without stacks, and because of the variability in
mercury emissions from this batch process, periodic manual sampling is
inadequate and provides only a snapshot in time of the emissions.

	Commenters also asked what happens if the 80 percent goal is not met.
Another stated that there is a great deal of uncertainty in estimating
the percent of switches removed and that the use of this uncertain
statistic could cause effective switch removal programs to have their
approval revoked.  We addressed these issues at proposal (72 FR 53824)
and we note again that the 80 percent minimum recovery rate is a goal
that all parties to the MOU agreed to work toward.  We recognize that 80
percent recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two; however,
the parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at least four
million switches in the first three years of the NVMSRP and agreed to
exceed this amount if possible.  We believe that recovery of four
million switches (approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per
switch) in the first three years is a good beginning for working toward
recovery of 80 percent of mercury switches.  It is necessary to
acknowledge that there will be an initial delay in many States that have
recently joined the NVMSRP while individual dismantlers accumulate
sufficient switches to make a shipment for recovery.  It has been
estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch
collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS website at
www.elvsolutions.org, switches are typically collected in 3.5 gallon
buckets that can hold up to 450 mercury pellets from switch assemblies).

Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury switches is
not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a program.  In the
proposed rule, we explained that the Administrator can evaluate the
success of an EPA-approved program at any time, identify States where
improvements might be needed, recommend options for improving the
program in a particular State, and if necessary, disapprove the program
as implemented in a State from being used to demonstrate compliance with
the rule based on an assessment of this performance.  The evaluation
would be based on progress reports submitted to the Administrator that
provide the number of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of
vehicles processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered.  The
Administrator can assess the information with respect to the program’s
goal for percent switch recovery and trends in recovery rates.  For
example, as the NVMSRP has ramped up, switch recovery rates have
increased from 241,000 switches in 2006 to 602,000 through the first 10
months of 2007.

Comment:  One commenter noted that in the NVMSRP MOU, funding was
negotiated with the understanding that the EAF rule would provide strong
incentives for switch removal after the incentive fund was depleted.
The commenter states that the proposed rule does not appear to provide
such incentives because there are no performance measures, goals, or
consequences for failing to remove switches.  The commenter further
states that to provide accountability and enhance effectiveness, the
rule should stipulate enforceable consequences for the EAF sector in the
event that the pollution prevention approach is not sufficient to
achieve necessary emission reductions.  The commenter suggests that if
existing and proposed programs are not successful, then additional
emission control and monitoring requirements and/or further EAF
financial support to the NVMSRP should be required.

Response:  The rule provides a strong incentive for EAF owners or
operators to continue their support for the NVMSRP even after the
incentive fund is depleted.  Facilities that do not participate in an
EPA-approved program must develop and operate by site-specific switch
removal plans that may prove to be more burdensome than that of
participating in the NVMSRP.  The rule requires that metal scrap
purchased for use in an EAF be procured from a supplier that removes
mercury convenience light switches.  If an EAF owner or operator fails
to meet the requirements related to audits of suppliers, reporting,
recordkeeping or any other rule provisions, then the owner or operator
is at risk of being found in violation of the rule.  If the facility is
at risk of non-compliance because of the actions of a scrap provider,
then it is in the interest of the owner or operator to take corrective
actions and fix the problem with the scrap provider or to terminate the
scrap purchasing contract because of failure to meet scrap
specifications.

Comment: One commenter stated that a review of the End of Life Vehicle
Solutions (ELVS) database indicates a number of cases where individual
dismantlers are participants in the NVMSRP, but have yet to submit
collected switches.

Response:  The ELVS website, which provides information on the NVMSRP
and its members, includes the date when a particular automobile or scrap
recycler joined the program.  As the facility-specific data show, some
recyclers joined the program during its first year of implementation or
even earlier.  We do not believe that this should cause undue concern at
this time.  Some States had instituted statutorily mandated programs
prior to the establishment of the national program and, therefore, have
been operating for a longer period of time.  Automobile and scrap
recyclers in these States have had more of incentive to participate
early on in the program.  It is possible that automobile and scrap
recyclers in those States have already submitted switches to be
recycled, some of which may have been stored in anticipation of a future
opportunity to dispose or recycle them.  States that have just joined
the national program are clearly in a ramp-up phase.  There will be an
initial delay associated with many new programs while individual
dismantlers accumulate sufficient switches to make a shipment for
recovery.  It has been estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to
fill a switch collection bucket that typically holds about 400 mercury
pellets from switches.  The same type of lag time in shipping was noted
when one of the first switch removal programs in the country was
initiated by the State of Maine.

The data show that during its first full year, the program has made
significant progress, and as we pointed out earlier, over 1,855 pounds
of mercury has been recovered, and this represents almost 20 percent of
our estimated annual reduction in mercury emissions (5 tons per year)
once the rule is fully implemented.  The second year of the program will
shift from roll-out to ramping up participation and collection rates.
We should see significant progress toward achieving 80 percent recovery
of switches in the third year of program implementation.

Comment:  One commenter questioned the meaning of “80 percent” in
the reduction of mercury switches: does it refer to the convenience
switches in one automobile, the total weight of mercury in switches in a
vehicle being turned into scrap, the total number of switches and other
sources of mercury in one vehicle, or none of the above.

Response: “80 percent” switch recovery is the goal, and the percent
of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined in the MOU) is the
number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life vehicles divided by
the total mercury switch population in end-of-life vehicles in a given
time period (e.g., each year of the program) times 100.

Comment: One commenter objected to the credit allowed in calculating the
80 percent mercury switch removal goal for site-specific plans.  The
commenter objected to the credit because it allows counting of mercury
removed from components other than convenience lighting while the
approved plan requires only the removal of mercury switches from
convenience lighting.  The commenter stated that the provision is not
consistent with the MOU, which states that only mercury switches used
for convenience lighting will be counted for purposes of measuring
program performance.  The commenter argued that site-specific plans
should not be held to a higher standard than the NVMSRP.

Response:  While it is true that only switches from convenience lighting
apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS accepts all
automobile mercury switches (including those from anti-lock brake
systems (ABS)), and the automobile or scrap recyclers that remove them
are paid the incentive fee of $1.00 per switch.  We believe that this
provides an incentive to remove switches from other systems as well as
for convenience lighting.  In the requirements for site-specific plans,
other sources of mercury are included in determining the 80 percent
goal, such as ABS, security systems, active ride control, and other
applications.  Inclusion of these other components in the site-specific
programs provides an incentive for their removal.  These
mercury-containing components contribute less mercury (13 percent
compared to 87 percent from convenience light switches), and they are
more difficult to locate, identify, and remove.  Mercury-containing
components in ABS will be the components other than convenience light
switches that are most often removed.  The removal of these components
requires removing the rear seat and dismantling the ABS.  We believe
that if a dismantler chooses to take the time to remove and recover
mercury components from ABS or other components, they should receive
some type of credit for doing so, thus they can include them in their 80
percent minimum recovery goal.

Comment:  One commenter stated that at least two EAF facilities are
exempt from the proposed rule because they are collocated with major
source integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities.  The
commenter noted that if these facilities are not covered by the rule and
choose not to participate in the voluntary NVMSRP, then these facilities
and their suppliers will enjoy at least two competitive advantages over
the 91 facilities that will have to comply with the rule:  they will
have lower costs and they will be free of any legal requirement to
address mercury in the scrap that they receive, generate, and or use as
feedstock.  The commenter also stated that scrap from any supplier who
chooses to ignore mercury will preferentially flow to these facilities
because there will be no legal or voluntary obligation for that supply
chain to address mercury.

Response:  As we stated at proposal, we plan to list EAFs as a major
source category and develop MACT standards for HAP emissions, including
mercury.

Comment:  One commenter noted that the criteria by which the
Administrator will evaluate semiannual reports are not specified for the
option of a site-specific plan for switch removal.  The commenter went
on to state that there is no incentive to meet the requirements and no
penalty for failing to do so.  Another commenter is concerned about the
proposed rule’s mechanism for approval of alternative switch recovery
programs since States vary in their level of participation in the NVMSRP
and have a variety of statutory and regulatory requirements, State level
MOUs, State incentive funds, and other program components.  The
commenter said that to ensure consistency and enforceability, clear
criteria and procedures that ensure any program’s effectiveness need
to be specified in the rule.  One commenter suggested the Administrator
specifically consider the participation rate of scrap suppliers to an
area steel mill and the collection rate of the largest scrap suppliers
to the facility prior to approving the goals.  One of the commenters
noted that as proposed, the rule directs the Administrator to determine
if NVMSRP or alternative programs are adequately recovering switches,
but provides no quantitative requirements.

Response:  As we discussed above, the Administrator will evaluate the
number of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles
processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered.  (See
§63.10685(b)(1)(v) and (b)(2)(iii)).  The Administrator can assess the
information with respect to the program’s goal for percent switch
recovery and trends in recovery rates.  The criteria are not hard and
fixed because flexibility is needed to consider potentially lower
recovery rates as the program is established and higher rates as the
number of participants peaks.  We have described earlier the database
used for documenting and measuring mercury switch recovery.  We believe
that this database provides sufficient transparency to ensure that the
program is making measurable program progress and assuring
accountability while at the same time remaining flexible.

We have provided sufficient detail in the rule for the criteria used to
approve State and other switch removal programs:  (1) there is an
outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on switch
removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least 80
percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must submit
annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and the
estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed.

4.  Other Sources of Mercury in Scrap

Comment:  Several commenters claimed that a significant amount of
mercury comes from sources other than automobile scrap, including
household and commercial appliances, heating and air conditioning units,
and industrial equipment.  Some of these commenters suggested addressing
these sources of mercury by expanding the NVMSRP.  One commenter stated
that the mercury from sources other than automobiles was on the order of
40 to 50 percent of the mercury in scrap.  Another commenter noted that
the counteracting effect of increased use of ABS, more mercury
containing electronic devices in cars, and other mercury-containing
items, could conceivably lead to a net increase in the mercury in scrap
processed by steel mills.

One commenter stated that the rule should address these mercury sources
to scrap metal by incorporation into the NVMSRP or through the
establishment and funding (by mercury product manufacturers and the EAF
sector) of collection programs targeting other products that contribute
to scrap metal.  The commenter suggested as an example a possible
requirement that mercury thermostat manufacturers and the EAF sector
could fund an expansion of the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC)
program, a voluntary end-of-life mercury thermostat collection
initiative supported by thermostat manufacturers.  The commenter stated
that the TRC is a well-established program but provides no recovery
incentives and has achieved a poor national recovery rate.

Response:  At proposal, we considered the removal of other
mercury-containing components in automobiles, such as switches in ABS,
and determined the option was not justified as a beyond-the floor
standard (72 FR 53824).  These sensors are considerably more difficult
and time consuming to remove than are convenience light switches, and
they contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of the mercury in
end-of-life vehicles comes from convenience light switches).  The
commenters provided no data or rationale to support that the removal of
other sources of mercury from the scrap supply was economically and
technologically feasible as a beyond-the-floor option.

We have no data or documentation that non-automobile sources contribute
40 to 50 percent of the mercury as the commenters claim, and we have
some indications their estimate is quite high.  For example, a report
(available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/appliancereport.html"
http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/appliancereport.html ) prepared
for the State of Massachusetts stated that mercury switches in obsolete
appliances accounted for less than 1 percent of the mercury in the solid
waste stream.  Most mercury-containing components in appliances were
phased out several years ago, and any that might remain would contribute
very little mercury to the scrap supply compared to switches in
automobiles.  In addition, end-of-life vehicles contribute approximately
7 times more in tons of total metal to the scrap supply than do obsolete
appliances; consequently, these factors suggest that end-of-life
vehicles are the primary contributor to mercury in the scrap supply.
While some ABS contained mercury sensors as we noted at proposal, these
too have been phased out and were much less common and contained less
mercury than convenience light switches.

5.  Role of State Agencies

Comment:  One commenter claimed that State agencies would have little or
no say in approving site-specific pollution prevention plans and that
State and/or local agencies should have more authority over such
approvals.  Another commenter noted that part of the approval process
can be delegated to the permitting authority, but there may be many
varying programs and elements of programs that individual companies or
facilities may wish to implement, some of which States do not have any
experience with.  The commenter recommends that EPA retain the
responsibility for approving programs and provide clear criteria for an
acceptable program, and use these criteria to approve existing State
programs that are not part of the NVMSRP.

	Two commenters were concerned about the ability of air agencies to
enforce a pollution prevention program that will, in many cases, be
overseen by solid and hazardous waste programs.  The commenters noted
that the requirements of the switch removal program must be incorporated
into air permits, and the provisions must be clearly understood and
enforceable by State air agencies in cooperation with their counterparts
in other media programs.  The commenters are concerned that if these
provisions are not explicit in the program, this pollution prevention
approach will not be effective.

One State agency commenter asked that EPA approve the vehicle mercury
switch recovery program mandated by Maine State law as an EPA-approved
program under the rule.  The commenter noted that the Maine program has
been the most successful switch recovery program to date, with a 2006
recovery rate of over 90 percent for all mercury switches – not just
convenience light switches.  The commenter further added that the
program meets or exceeds all of the criteria that are identified in the
proposed rule as necessary to effect mercury reductions from EAFs.

One commenter recommended that EPA grant pre-approval of existing State
programs.  The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight existing
State programs (which account for about 1,900 participants), would
eliminate the need for scrap providers participating in those programs
to obtain EPA approval of their site-specific plans.

Response:  We agree that State agencies should be involved in reviewing
and approving or disapproving site-specific pollution prevention plans.
We expect that the State permitting authority will have a better
understanding of the facilities in their State and their site-specific
operating conditions and any special circumstances.  We are clarifying
that the rule delegates to the States the authority to implement and
enforce those requirements in the rule dealing with contaminants from
scrap except for the approval of national, State, or local agency
programs under the option for approved mercury programs.  We believe
that such broad programs should require EPA approval and that it is not
appropriate for a State agency to evaluate and approve a national
program or their own program.  The rule should be implemented by State
air programs and not by solid and hazardous waste programs.

We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery program mandated by
State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program because they submitted
documentation that the requirements are equivalent to (or more stringent
than) the approved national program.  The program in Maine represents
MACT, and we explained at proposal that MACT is a national, State, local
or facility-specific switch recovery program that meets specific
criteria.  No other States made such requests or submitted information
showing equivalency; consequently, we are not currently identifying
other State programs as EPA-approved in the final rule.

6.  Comments on Specific Rule Changes

Comment:  One commenter stated that in §63.10685(b)(1)(i) and (ii), the
requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to
make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of inaccessible
switches.  The commenter suggests replacing “mercury switches” with
“accessible mercury switches.”

Response:  We have defined mercury switch to include only those switches
that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism.  Our information
indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily removed, and
it is important to the success of the pollution prevention program that
they be removed.  Consequently, we are not adding the additional
requirement that they be “accessible,” which would introduce
additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be made as to
what is accessible.

Comment:  One commenter stated the requirement in §63.10685(b)(1)(B)
for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets specifications does
not seem to allow for uncertainty or error.  The commenter suggested
that the language read “Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap
providers that to the best of their knowledge, motor vehicle scrap
provided to the facility meets the scrap specification”.

Response:  We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter is
necessary because the phrase “to the best of their knowledge” is
subjective and likely creates confusion rather than clarity.  The EAF
owner or operator must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the
scrap meets specifications.

Comment:  One commenter said the requirement in §63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C)
for a means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and
dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence
of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap should be replaced with
appropriate steps “to encourage the removal of accessible mercury
switches from motor vehicles to be shredded.”

Response:  We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to minimize
the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is necessary to
ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution prevention
requirements.

Comment:  One commenter expressed concern that the requirements in
§63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require scrap
providers to divulge confidential business information (CBI) or to
provide sensitive information to EAF operators to comply.

Response:  It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and EAF
operator to provide the information required by the rule and to
establish procedures if necessary to protect confidential information.
The requirements cited by the commenter refer to:  (1) periodic
inspections of scrap providers and dismantlers to ensure appropriate
steps are being taken to remove mercury switches; (2) estimates of the
number of switches removed; and (3) semiannual progress reports that
provide the number of switches or weight of mercury removed, number of
vehicles processed, estimate of the percent of switches removed, and
certification of proper disposal of the switches.  This information is
an essential monitoring component of the rule to measure the
effectiveness of a facility’s pollution prevention program.  The
information on number of vehicles processed can be aggregated for a
facility if it is important not to reveal the number of vehicles
processed by a given scrap provider.  We do not see nor did the
commenter identify exactly what component of the requested information
would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that there is CBI
involved, EPA and the permitting authorities have established procedures
for managing and safeguarding CBI and will, of course, utilize them.

Comment:  One commenter objected to the requirement in
§63.10685(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of
end-of-life vehicles.  The commenter stated that to impose such
burdensome requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far
exceeds the Agency’s regulatory authority.

Response:  The burden imposed by the Agency is on the EAF owner or
operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a critical
monitoring component of the rule.  The EAF owner or operator in turn
must require this information from scrap providers, and if such
information is not obtained, the EAF owner or operator could be found in
violation of the rule.

Comment:  One commenter objected to the proposed requirement for EPA
approval of the scrap pollution prevention plan and mercury switch
removal plan if prior approval is needed before the plan can be
implemented or a change made.  The commenter argued that prior approval
would require all EAF operations to be shut down from the effective date
of the rule until the plan is approved (unless EPA can approve all plans
in the limited time available), that the need to respond to scrap that
is presently available precludes the ability of the facility to seek
prior approval of changes, and that it is unclear that EPA can provide
meaningful review of scrap plans.  The commenter suggested language that
would require facilities to keep a copy of the plan onsite and update
the plan to address any deficiency within 90 days of receiving a written
notice from the Administrator.  The commenter stated that recordkeeping
and compliance certification requirements should be added consistent
with the requirement.

Response:  We continue to believe that the pollution prevention plans
must be submitted to the permitting authority for review and approval to
ensure they adequately address the requirements in the rule.  We are
clarifying in the final rule that the owner or operator must operate
according to the plan as submitted during the review and approval
process, operate according to the approved plan at all times after
approval, and address any deficiency identified by the permitting
authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan.  We are also
clarifying that the owner or operator may request approval to revise the
plan and may operate according to the revised plan unless and until the
revision is disapproved by the permitting authority.

Comment:  One commenter pointed to the provision in
§63.10685(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data.  The
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and
the effective date of the revocation provide sufficient time for the
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under §63.10685(b)(1)
and if there was a process in place for seeking reconsideration of
revocation.

Response:  We are clarifying in the final rule that the authority for
the approval of site-specific plans is delegated to the permitting
authority.  This is what the proposed rule allowed because this
authority was not among those listed in the rule as not being delegated.
 We believe the 90-day period is adequate for the approval process.  The
rule has no formal process for seeking reconsideration of revocation.

  Comment:  One commenter recommended that the proposed definition of
“scrap provider” be revised because the definition includes brokers
who have no oversight over scrap preparation and delivery.  According to
the commenter, a revised definition should allow brokers to be
considered “scrap providers” as a contractual matter.  The commenter
suggested that EPA define “scrap provider” to mean “the final
preparer of scrap delivered to a steel mill, or a broker when a brokered
transaction specifies that the broker provide information to the steel
mill from the scrap processors participating in the brokered
transaction.”

Response:  We disagree because the definition as proposed allows a
broker to be considered a scrap provider.  The EAF owner or operator
must ensure that the broker receives scrap only from suppliers
participating in an EPA-approved program, and we have clarified this in
the final rule.  For the site-specific option, the EAF owner or operator
must obtain assurance from all scrap providers that mercury switches
have been removed and provide an accounting of the number of switches
removed and vehicles processed for all scrap providers, along with all
of the other requirements in the site-specific plan.

Comment:  One commenter recommended that the proposed definition of
“motor vehicle scrap” be revised to refer to shredded scrap that
contains shredded end-of-life vehicles.  The commenter explained that
shredded scrap typically includes shredded end-of-life or obsolete
appliances as well as other materials.  Alternatively, the commenter
suggested replacing the definition of “motor vehicle scrap” with a
definition of “shredded scrap”, which would contain some fraction of
shredded end-of-life vehicles.

Response:  The definition of motor vehicle scrap is specific to vehicles
processed in a shredder.  We do not see a need to revise the definitions
as suggested by the commenter.

	Comment:  One commenter recommended that EPA revise §63.10685(b) to
clarify that scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap does not
need to meet one of the three compliance options for mercury.  The
commenter suggested using the term “motor vehicle scrap provider”
instead of “scrap provider.”  Otherwise, the commenter asked that
EPA add a fourth compliance option under §63.19685(b) for scrap that
contains no motor vehicle scrap and require certification to that effect
for the scrap provider, contract for scrap, or scrap shipment.  The
commenter stated that recordkeeping and compliance certification
requirements should be added consistent with the requirement.

Response:  We have clarified in the final rule that the mercury switch
removal provisions and three compliance options apply to scrap that
contains motor vehicle scrap.  In addition, we have added a new
provision to the rule for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle
scrap to require a certification and documentation through records that
the scrap does not contain not contain motor vehicle scrap.

	Comment:  One commenter objected to the requirement for facilities to
submit a semiannual report of all scrap shipments received under the
site-specific compliance option.  The commenter recommended that EPA
review scrap management records to determine compliance.  The commenter
provided recommended language for a semiannual report containing a
certification of compliance, along with records of how each motor
vehicle scrap provider, contract, or shipment complies with the rule.

Response:  We continue to believe that an accounting of mercury switches
and estimated number of vehicles processed must be submitted in
semiannual reports because it is an important monitoring provision that
is necessary to determine if the site-specific plan is being implemented
and to assess its effectiveness.  However, we are clarifying that the
information can be submitted in aggregate form and does not have to be
submitted for each shipment, which could include hundreds of records for
some large facilities.  However, the owner or operator must maintain
records for each motor vehicle scrap provider, contract, or shipment (as
the commenter suggests) sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the
rule and must make these records available upon the request of the
permitting authority.

Comment:  One commenter stated that the scrap specification requirements
for mercury switches make unrealistic and unenforceable demands of metal
purchasers.  The commenter notes that steel mill staff are required to
assure that the scrap is clean by visiting suppliers (who may be
hundreds of miles away) by doing visual inspection of their facilities
and treated scrap.  The commenter further notes that suppliers change
frequently, they buy from middlemen, and they ship scrap from combined
sources.  The commenter believes this shifts responsibility of
“ensuring” quality of scrap to the steelmakers and makes no
requirements of the steelmakers themselves, but asks them to inspect
members of an independent industry at large cost in staffing and travel
when it is unlikely to be effective.

Response:  The rule applies to owners or operators of EAF steelmaking
facilities, and it is the responsibility of these facilities to comply
with the rule.  Among other things, the final rule requires that EAF
owners or operators conduct periodic inspections or provide other means
of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are aware of the need for and
are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury
in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.  Periodic audits or inspections of
scrap suppliers or dismantlers are one means of complying with this
requirement.  Although there are certainly other means to comply with
this requirement, we note that periodic audits or inspections of scrap
suppliers or dismantlers are consistent with the agreement reached in
the NVMSRP among many stakeholders, including the scrap providers.  Some
EAF facilities already perform inspections of suppliers, and EAF
facilities have historical experience in ensuring the quality of the
scrap they receive because of safety concerns (e.g., radiation or
explosion hazards) and the direct effect of scrap quality on steel
quality.

The corroboration requirement in the final rule, as described above, is
an important element of assuring program effectiveness and achieving the
pollution prevention objective of section 112(d)(2)(A).  EPA is thus
adopting the requirement as an exercise of independent judgment, not
simply because it is in the agreement.

C.  Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury

1.  Opacity Limit for the Melt Shop

Comment:  Two commenters stated that a subcategory for older non-NSPS
facilities is justified by the fact that the non-NSPS status of these
facilities has a direct bearing on the technical and economic
feasibility of retrofitting to achieve the six percent opacity standard
during charging and tapping.  According to the commenters, these
facilities, by virtue of their design, are of a different class and type
from the NSPS facilities.  The commenters concluded that the alternative
standard described in the proposal preamble with an opacity standard of
six percent and an allowance of 20 percent opacity during charging and
tapping was appropriate for these non-NSPS facilities.  The commenters
provided a discussion of EPA’s authority to establish such a
subcategory and information they claimed indicated that EPA’s
estimates of the costs to retrofit the non-NSPS facilities was
understated.  The commenters also argued that applying the NSPS to the
non-NSPS facilities was not justified because the proposed standard was
not as cost effective as EPA had estimated, and in addition, the cost
effectiveness for HAP was much higher than what EPA had determined to be
unacceptable in other rulemakings.

The commenters noted that CAA section 112 grants the EPA authority to
categorize and subcategorize based on class, type, and size of source.
According to the commenters, the Administrator "may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory"
under section 112(d)(l), and similarly, section 112(c) authorizes EPA to
establish categories and subcategories of major and area sources in a
manner that is consistent with the list of categories and subcategories
under Section 111.  The commenters also indicated that section 111(b)(2)
provides EPA with authority to "distinguish among classes, types, and
sizes within categories," and section 112 further provides that
"(n)othing in the preceding sentence (referring to the desire to
maintain consistency between source categories under Sections 111 and
112) limits the Administrator's authority to establish subcategories
under this section, as appropriate."

The commenters pointed out that in the preamble to the proposed rule (72
FR 53826), EPA stated that it may be appropriate to consider a separate
subcategory of facilities based on the technical and economic
feasibility of retrofitting pre-1983 (non-NSPS) facilities.  According
to the commenters, such subcategorization is not new and falls within
the Agency's discretion to create subcategories.  The commenters
continued by stating that while age is not specifically identified as a
criterion for subcategorizing under Section 112, age may have a direct
correlation to the design of a facility, the production and air
pollution control equipment used by the facility, and other factors that
allow for "class, type, or size" subcategory distinctions within an
industry.  The commenters stated that courts have confirmed this
relationship between age and allowable subcategorization factors where
there is a meaningful, discernable relationship between the age of the
facility and the basis for subcategorization (e.g., the cost or
feasibility of retrofitting or the effectiveness of anti-pollution
devices on emissions) and cited American Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA,
568 F.2d 244, 298 (3rd Cir. 1977) ("AISI”) (also cited by EPA in the
preamble to the proposed rule).  The commenters claimed that the courts
have recognized that age may play a direct role in a facility's ability
to install anti-pollution devices (i.e., retrofitting costs) and on the
effectiveness of reducing emissions (citing American Iron and Steel
Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1046, 1048 (3rd Cir. 1975) (also cited by EPA),
recognizing the "special problem" in requiring a one-size-fits-all
anti-pollution device in industries where there is considerable
variation in the age of facilities).

The commenters stated that they are not seeking subcategorization based
strictly on the age of the facility, but rather to recognize that
non-NSPS facilities (those that were constructed prior to 1983 and not
subsequently modified) face design and equipment challenges in achieving
the opacity standards that more modern facilities are engineered to
meet.  According to the commenters, non-NSPS facilities are a different
"class" or "type" of facility from NSPS facilities, and consistent with
the cases cited, the non-NSPS status of certain EAF steelmaking
facilities bears directly on the technical and economic feasibility of
reducing fugitive emissions and warrants a separate subcategory.  The
commenters claimed that non-NSPS facilities vary substantially in design
and compliance requirements, but in almost all cases the buildings are
not fully closed and the furnace design and emission capture systems are
such that modifications are required to achieve the NSPS standards.
According to the commenters, these design and equipment differences are
reasonable bases on which to justify a non-NSPS subcategory.

The commenters provided information concerning the modifications and
retrofitting that would be required at the non-NSPS facilities to meet
the six percent opacity limit.  In addition, the commenters submitted
estimates of the costs and identified additional non-NSPS facilities not
previously included in EPA’s analysis of impacts.  The commenters
noted that there are 11 non-NSPS facilities that cannot currently meet
the NSPS opacity limit (rather than the six identified at proposal) and
estimated that the capital cost to meet the standard as $85 to $99
million instead of EPA’s estimate at proposal of $29 million.  Among
the plants identified by the commenter was one plant that the commenter
stated could meet the opacity limit 99 percent of the time, but the
commenter claimed that costs would be incurred to address trivial and
infrequent excursions to ensure the facility could meet the limit 100
percent of the time.

The commenters stated that applying the NSPS opacity limit to the
non-NSPS plants was less cost effective than EPA‘s estimates at
proposal because costs were underestimated and emission reductions were
overestimated.  The commenters cited the higher capital costs described
above and also stated that other costs, such as lost revenue due to
downtime to perform upgrades and annual operating costs (including
increased power consumption and maintenance labor) had not been included
in EPA’s estimates.  In addition, the commenters claimed that EPA’s
estimates of emission reductions were overstated because some of the
dust assumed to be collected by the improved capture system would have
settled within the melt shop rather than being emitted as fugitive
emissions through the melt shop roof.  The commenter also stated that
the improved capture efficiency estimated for three facilities (from 85
percent to 95 percent) assumed an open roof monitor; however the
improvement in capture is more likely from 90 percent to 95 percent
because these facilities do not have open roofs.  The commenter believes
that the emission reductions for these facilities is about half of that
estimated by EPA.

The commenter also stated that EPA’s cost effectiveness estimate of
$160,000/ton of HAP was higher than what had been accepted in other
rulemakings: $6,800/ton chlorine rejected and $1,100/ton chlorine
accepted (hazardous waste combustors); $45,000/ton hydrogen chloride
rejected (industrial boilers); $90,000/ton acrylonitrile rejected
(acrylic and modacrylic fibers); $724 to $9,000/ton of organic HAP
accepted (halogenated solvent cleaning); and $300 to $10,000/ton of
organic HAP accepted (gasoline distribution).  The commenters stated
that it was inappropriate to compare the particulate matter (PM) cost
effectiveness of the proposed rule with that of mobile source programs
because those programs were geared towards addressing PM while the area
source rule is focused on HAP emissions.  The commenters believe the
proper comparison is with respect to the cost effectiveness of HAP
emission reductions as described above.

Response:  We proposed a standard of six percent opacity for the EAF
melt shop for all plants in the source category (i.e., no subcategories)
as GACT because about 90 percent of the existing facilities are subject
to and achieve this level of control, and the technology used by these
facilities is generally available.  We requested comment on an
alternative based on a subcategory for older facilities and an
alternative standard of six percent opacity except for 20 percent
opacity during charging and tapping (72 FR 53826).  We also requested
supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization
and representativeness of the data.

The commenters claimed that there are meaningful differences between
plants that are subject to the NSPS and those that are not subject to
it, although they correctly acknowledged that age can only be a proxy
for some process difference (i.e., age in and of itself is not a basis
for subcategorization).  However, we are not convinced that there is any
basis for subcategorization because the non-NSPS plants have no physical
differences that are impediments to the installation of the necessary
and widely-demonstrated capture and control systems for fugitive
emissions.  Moreover, as we discuss in detail below, even if (against
our view) it is appropriate to subcategorize, GACT would be the same for
NSPS plants and non-NSPS plants.

We stated at proposal that GACT for fugitive emissions from the melt
shop includes hoods to capture the fugitive emissions escaping during
charging, melting, and tapping, and ducting the emissions to a baghouse.
 All EAF facilities have capture and control systems for emissions from
charging, melting, and tapping, and this technology has been applied to
many other industries (e.g., iron and steel foundries, integrated iron
and steel plants).  However, most EAF steelmaking facilities have better
capture systems for charging and tapping emissions than do some of the
affected non-NSPS plants.  We have identified no technical reason that
the capture and control systems demonstrated by plants subject to the
NSPS to achieve an opacity limit of six percent cannot be applied
industry wide.  The technology for upgrading the capture and control of
emissions from charging and tapping is generally available and includes
new or redesigned capture hoods, higher evacuation rates, and in some
cases, additional baghouse capacity, all of which have been accounted
for in our cost estimates.

Not only is this type of technology routinely utilized, but there is no
technical impediment to its applicability in this source category.  The
commenters stated that “buildings are not fully closed and the furnace
design and emission capture systems are such that modifications are
required to achieve the NSPS standards”, but this merely indicates
that some type of upgrade would be required for plants to meet the
standards, not that these older plants cannot be physically enclosed so
that they were able to achieve the NSPS opacity limit.  Moreover, these
sources’ fugitive emissions consist of the same HAP in the same
concentration as all of the NSPS plants.  (See the HAP concentration
data presented in “Electric Arc Furnace Impacts Analysis”, Docket
Item 0074 in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.)  In addition, a number
of pre-NSPS EAFs have in fact upgraded to meet a 6 percent opacity
limit.  Not only are these sources’ fugitive emissions comparable to
those of the remaining non-upgraded facilities, but their costs are
comparable as well, as are the cost effectiveness of the emission
reductions.  (See the results of the cost survey of plants that have
previously upgraded as discussed in “Electric Arc Furnace Impacts
Analysis”, Docket Item 0074 in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.)

EPA therefore does not believe that the remaining non-NSPS plants are of
a different class or type than the universe of sources meeting the 6
percent opacity standard.  They produce the same product by the same
means, are capable of controlling opacity by the same means at the same
effectiveness, appear to be identically situated to non-NSPS EAFs which
meet the 6 percent standard, and (as discussed below) are capable of
meeting that standard at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness.

Moreover, even if (against our views) subcategorization would be
appropriate, EPA believes GACT for the subcategory would be the NSPS
standard.  The standard reflects readily available technology (as just
discussed) at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness.  EPA carefully
reviewed the detailed cost information submitted by the commenters for
upgrading non-NSPS plants to meet the proposed opacity limit.  The cost
estimates are higher than those we developed at proposal reflecting that
there are certain unique or site-specific factors for several plants
that would result in costs higher than those we generated that did not
include site-specific cost elements.  We have accordingly revised the
cost analysis from proposal and used the commenters’ estimates of
capital cost for most of the non-NSPS plants (using the average for
those cases where a range of costs were provided for a given plant).  We
have also incorporated the commenters’ estimates on the increased
operating costs when they provided such estimates (e.g., increased
consumption of electricity and labor for operation and maintenance).
When estimates of operating cost were not provided, we developed
estimates of operating costs for electricity, labor for operation and
maintenance, and dust disposal based on the size of the upgraded system.

We did not accept the commenters’ full estimate of cost for one
non-NSPS plant.  The commenters provided a capital cost estimate of
$30.5 million to replace the entire existing melt shop at this plant,
including a new and larger EAF to replace two small ones, new EAF
transformers, new cranes and other ancillary equipment, and other
modifications.  We disagree with this cost estimate because it is based
on the cost for a new facility, including new process equipment, in
addition to new capture and control equipment for emissions.  For our
revised impacts analysis, we estimated the cost for emission capture and
control equipment only and used a capital cost of $16.3 million that the
commenter attributed to a new baghouse and ancillary equipment
associated with emission control; however, we note that it could be more
economical to upgrade the existing baghouses, and the cost estimate of
$16 million was based on an EAF steelmaking facility that was several
times larger than this plant, making even this estimate highly
conservative.  (The estimated impacts, including the revised cost
estimates, are documented in “Revised Analysis of Impacts” in the
rulemaking docket.)

We also reviewed the available information on costs associated with lost
production when the upgrades are installed.  Prior to proposal, we sent
a detailed cost survey to several plants that had made substantial
upgrades to improve the capture and control of fugitive emissions.  One
plant stated that the installation was performed as much as possible
over a 1 year period during normal operations, the final tie-in of the
control system to the EAF was made during a regularly-scheduled
production outage of two weeks, and sufficient inventory was maintained
to supply customers.  A second plant also said that most of the
installation was completed during normal operations, final tie-in was
during two different scheduled outages of two weeks, and sufficient
inventory was maintained to supply customers.  A third plant replied
that they could not provide a reliable estimate of any costs that might
have been due to lost production during the installation.  Based on the
actual experience of plants that have made upgrades, we believe that
significant costs due to lost production can be avoided by installation
as much as possible during normal operation, final tie-in during a
regularly-scheduled outage for maintenance, and building sufficient
inventory to supply customers during the short period of production
shutdown.

The commenter identified one plant that could meet the opacity limit 99
percent of the time, but claimed that costs would be incurred to address
trivial and infrequent excursions to ensure the facility could meet the
limit 100 percent of the time.  The commenter did not include any cost
estimates for this plant in their estimates of total costs for meeting
the opacity limit and only provided a qualitative discussion and capital
cost estimates for the wholesale replacement of EAFs.  The estimates
provided by the commenter were for the capital cost of replacing EAFs,
including in one case purchasing a used 20-ton EAF to replace existing
furnaces with a capital cost of $4.2 million and in another case
installing a new 40-ton furnace at a cost of over $70 million.  We
requested several times but did not receive any opacity data showing
whether this plant could or could not meet the opacity limit, and we do
not think it appropriate to assume a new and larger EAF would need to be
installed at a cost of many millions of dollars to address trivial and
infrequent excursions even if they had occurred.  Excursions that occur
one percent of the time or less could well be outliers and a result of
an equipment failure that is not preventable (i.e., a malfunction).
Moreover, a rare excursion could be caused by a preventable equipment
failure or operating error, in which case the event might be considered
a deviation.  If the excursion occurs because of a particular sequence
or overlapping of cycles since this facility has multiple small
furnaces, then careful attention to scheduling of operations might be a
solution.  In any event, the commenter and facility did not provide
sufficient information, a credible cost estimate, or any opacity data;
consequently, we do not have sufficient information to conclude that the
facility would incur significant costs for upgrading.

Our revised estimate of the cost for non-NSPS to meet the NSPS opacity
limit is a capital cost of $69 million and a total annualized cost of
$13 million per year.  These costs average less than one percent of
sales, will not affect the profit margin significantly, and will not
cause plant closures.  Consequently, the technology to meet the NSPS is
economically feasible, which supports our view that the emission control
technology is “generally available.”

	We also re-examined our estimates of the emission reductions
attributable to revised standards (the key input, along with cost, to
assessing cost effectiveness).  The commenters stated that for three
plants, the reductions should be based on improving capture efficiency
from 90 percent to 95 percent rather than the improvement of 85 percent
to 95 percent that was used in our impacts analysis.  We have
acknowledged there is a great deal of uncertainty in this estimate;
consequently, we have developed estimates of HAP metal (and PM, their
surrogate) emission reductions using both ranges for improved capture
efficiency.  For plants that provided evacuation rates, we estimated the
emission reductions from the design evacuation rate and a PM
concentration of 0.01 gr/dscf in the captured emissions.  The commenters
stated that they believed this estimate is high because some of the dust
that is captured by the upgraded system would have settled out in the
melt shop and not be emitted as fugitive emissions.  However, the
estimate of 0.01 gr/dscf is an unbiased average estimate that we believe
is roughly accurate within a factor of two.  We had information from one
plant that indicated the concentration of fugitive emissions before
control was 0.02 gr/dscf (a factor of two higher than our estimate).
The lower end is bounded by 0.005 gr/dscf (a factor of two lower)
because at that concentration a baghouse would not be needed to meet the
PM emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf.  Consequently, we did not revise
this aspect of our estimates of emission reductions.

	After making the changes to the estimates of costs, emissions, and
emission reductions described above, the cost effectiveness is
$15,000/ton for PM and $250,000/ton for HAP metals.  As we stated at
proposal, we believe the cost effectiveness for PM is well within the
range of acceptability and is in line with the cost effectiveness for PM
for other rules (72 FR 53826).  We further noted at proposal that the
cost effectiveness for PM is within the range we have accepted
previously for control of PM emitted by mobile sources, and we continue
to believe that these mobile source rules provide a reasonable benchmark
for PM cost effectiveness.

	We also disagree with the commenters’ assertions that the cost
effectiveness for metal HAP is unacceptable.  The final GACT standard
for EAFs will provide reductions of 52 tons per year of compounds of
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, which are all urban HAP for which
this category was listed pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k).  EPA
listed these metal compounds as urban HAP because of their significant
adverse health effects.  A large portion of the reductions of these
urban HAP will occur in the urban areas that EPA identified in the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.  See CAA 112(k)(3)(C).

	The primary HAP emitted from melting iron and steel scrap are manganese
and lead with smaller levels of chromium and nickel.  These metals
(especially manganese) are inherent components of the scrap that is
melted, and at the high temperatures used in the EAFs, the HAP metals
are unavoidably vaporized and emitted.  These metal HAP are present in
particulate matter emissions from the EAF, and because they are in
particulate form, they can be captured and removed from the gas stream
at high efficiency by control devices designed to capture particulate
matter (such as baghouses).  The nature of these emissions and the HAP
composition are unique to iron and steel melting furnaces such as EAFs
and are quite different from the emissions from other processes and
operations that do not involve melting metal scrap at high temperatures.

	There are adverse health effects associated with the metal HAP emitted
from EAFs.  Hexavalent chromium and certain forms of nickel are known
human carcinogens.  Lead is toxic at low concentrations, and children
are particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of lead.  Chronic
exposure to manganese affects the central nervous system.  Additional
details on the health and environmental effects of these HAP can be
found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html .  In addition,
approximately 50 percent of the PM emissions are in the form of fine
particulate matter, and EPA studies have found that fine particles
continue to be a significant source of health risks in many urban areas.

Accordingly, even considered as a separate subcategory, EPA believes
that GACT for these sources would be the current NSPS standard, due to
technical feasibility at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness.

Furthermore, we have incorporated into this final rule certain
provisions of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) that
afford sources additional flexibility.  For example, existing sources
can request an additional year to comply with the standard if they can
demonstrate to the permitting authority that such additional time is
needed to install controls.  See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A).  In addition,
EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 112(l) provide further
flexibility.  Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provides that a
State may seek approval of permit terms and conditions that differ from
those specified in a section 112 rule, if the State can demonstrate that
the terms and conditions of the permit are equivalent to the
requirements of this rule.  The procedures for seeking approval of such
a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR 63.94.

Comment:  One commenter noted the proposal requires that a capture
system must collect “gases and fumes”, while a capture system is
defined as collecting “particulate matter”.  The commenter believes
that neither of these terms is correct; the capture system should be
described as capturing “emissions” generated from the EAF and other
metallurgy operations.

Response:  We agree and have made this revision.

Comment:   One commenter noted that the proposed rule identifies opacity
standards for melt shops exclusive to EAF or ladle metallurgy operations
(LMO) and no other sources.  The commenter requested that the term
“melt shop” be defined so that the applicability of the opacity
standard is accurately applied.  The commenter further claimed that the
current requirement restricting the opacity standard to the operation of
an EAF or LMO is unenforceable.  The commenter said that based on
States’ experiences, many different operations occur within a melt
shop, and without having at least one other person positioned within the
building viewing all operations within, it would be impossible to know
whether emissions observed outside of a building were associated with
all the activities of a melt shop or solely the EAF or LMO.  The
commenter suggested removing the exclusivity of the opacity standard to
EAF and LMO.

Response:  We disagree.  The procedures for conducting opacity
observations are the same as those in the NSPS, and these procedures
have been used successfully for over 20 years to enforce the NSPS.  In
addition, our opacity data and GACT determination were based on the
procedures for conducting opacity observations as required by the NSPS.

2.  Ladle Metallurgy Operations

	Comment:  Two commenters stated that LMO should not be covered by the
EAF area source rule because it would be inconsistent with the area
source listing of EAF steelmaking facilities (which does not mention
LMO).  The area source listing reflects the fact that EAF emissions are
the source of the vast majority of PM (and potential HAP) emissions at
these facilities.  The commenters stated that coverage of LMO will
require additional controls at many facilities to address minimal HAP
emissions.  The commenters claimed that EPA has not collected
information on LMO emissions or the cost of controlling them and also
noted that LMO is not covered by the NSPS.  The commenters claim that
HAP metals have been removed from the steel in the EAF by the time it
reaches the post processing stage of the LMO.  The commenters indicated
that there are 12 facilities with a separate LMO baghouse (i.e., not
ducted to the baghouse associated with the EAF), seven with the LMO
located in a separate building, and six facilities that stated LMO
fugitive emissions are separate from EAF melt shop emissions.  The
commenters stated that these facilities will need to take steps to
ensure they can meet the NSPS limits.  One commenter also stated that
argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels should not be covered by the
area source rule for the same reasons given above for LMO (except that
AOD vessels are covered by the NSPS).  The commenter provided no
information similar to that provided for LMO on AOD vessels with
separate baghouses or located in separate buildings.

Another commenter requested that EPA clarify that LMO is not covered by
the standard or, if it is subject to the standard, which it complies if
it is equipped with a side draft hood or close fitting hood even if
there is no additional canopy collection.

Response:  We agree with the commenters that the area source listing and
1990 emissions inventory for EAFs did not include LMO.  The PM emissions
from LMO are a small percentage of the emissions from EAF operations,
and as the commenters note, the percent HAP in the PM from LMO is lower
than that from EAFs because the more volatile HAP metals are removed
during the EAF melting process.  Consequently, we are clarifying that
the area source rule applies only to EAFs and AOD vessels.

	We disagree with the one commenter who suggested that AOD vessels also
should not be covered by the area source standard for many of the same
reasons that were applied to LMO.  Although the use of LMO was not very
widespread in 1990, AOD vessels have been used at specialty and
stainless steel facilities for many years.  In fact, AOD vessels were
included in the 1983 NSPS, and we included AOD vessels in our GACT
determination for EAF steelmaking facilities.  Many AOD operations are
vented to and controlled by the same baghouses that are used to control
EAF emissions; consequently, the 1990 emissions inventory would have
included AOD emissions even when the emission source was identified as
the EAF.  Thus when we listed the EAF steelmaking area source category