Comment: Two commenters stated that LMO should not be covered by
the EAF area source rule because it would be inconsistent with the area
source listing of EAF steelmaking facilities (which does not mention
LMO). The area source listing reflects the fact that EAF emissions are
the source of the vast majority of PM (and potential HAP) emissions at
these facilities. The commenters stated that coverage of LMO will
require additional controls at many facilities to address minimal HAP
emissions. The commenters claimed that EPA has not collected
information on LMO emissions or the cost of controlling them and also
noted that LMO is not covered by the NSPS. The commenters claim that
HAP metals have been removed from the steel in the EAF by the time it
reaches the post processing stage of the LMO. The commenters indicated
that there are 12 facilities with a separate LMO baghouse (i.e., not
ducted to the baghouse associated with the EAF), seven with the LMO
located in a separate building,

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

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

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

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

E. Miscellaneous Comments

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

to Subpart YYYYY should indicate the limitation of the SSM
requirements.
    Response: We agree that the SSM requirements do not apply to the
pollution prevention plans. Sources must comply with the pollution
prevention plans at all times, including periods of SSM. Therefore,
separate requirements governing SSM are not necessary.
    Comment: One commenter stated that because the rule requires
compliance with the compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) provisions,
Table 1 to subpart YYYYY should indicate that the monitoring
requirements in Sec.  63.8(a) through (c) of the general provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A) apply only if a continuous opacity monitoring
system or continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is used.
    Response: We agree and will make this clarification.
2. Compliance Date
    Comment: Two commenters requested that three years be allowed for
non-NSPS facilities to install or modify controls to meet the opacity
limit. The commenters stated that a series of events must occur to
improve controls: Conceptual and detailed engineering studies must be
conducted to determine what is needed to achieve compliance, a budget
must be established and capital funding requests initiated and approved
by company management, the project must be contracted out (after a
competitive bidding process), necessary building permits obtained, and
construction initiated. The commenters asked that EPA provide for the
full three-year compliance period allowed under the CAA in order to
avoid a proliferation of extension requests.
    Response: We recognize that certain facilities will require
extensive upgrades, including new capture systems, new baghouses, and
site-specific modifications to improve control of fugitive emissions
and meet the melt shop opacity limit. Consequently, we agree that it is
appropriate to allow up to three years to achieve compliance for those
facilities that demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting
authority that additional time is needed to install or modify emission
control equipment to meet the opacity limit.
3. Title V Permit
    Comment: One commenter stated that the title V permit program is
for major sources of criteria pollutants or HAP. The commenter stated
that there was one small specialty steel EAF facility that was not a
major source for any pollutant and that the facility has a State permit
that caps emissions below major source thresholds. The commenter asked
that the proposed rule be revised to require a title V permit only for
those facilities that are major sources.
    Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA requires sources subject to
regulation under section 112 of the CAA to obtain a permit to operate.
However, Section 502(a) authorizes the Administrator, in his
discretion, to ``promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source
categories (in whole or in part) from the requirement of (title V) if
the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories * * * .'' EPA promulgated a rule interpreting section 502(a)
and therein stated that EPA may only exempt a category from Title V
permitting if we find compliance to be ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome,'' and we determine that exempting the
category would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. (See 70 FR 75,320 and 75,323, December 19, 2005.) Nowhere
in our rule did we establish a presumption in favor of exempting
sources from title V permitting, and the statute leaves such
determinations to the discretion of the Administrator.
    The decision to exempt a source category from title V requirements
is made on a case-by-case basis according to the facts of the
particular source category. The commenter has identified one EAF
steelmaking facility (in a population of over 90 facilities) that does
not currently have a title V permit. The commenter does not explain,
however, why an exemption from title V is appropriate for this source
category, where, as here, 99 percent of the facilities in the source
category have title V permits. We refer the commenter to the detailed
justification underlying exemption of other area source categories from
title V. (For example, see 72 FR 38871, July 16, 2007.) We continue to
believe that title V permitting is necessary for this source category.
The record in this case does not demonstrate that compliance with title
V permitting would be impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome for the sources in this category.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  63.106890(d) should be
revised because the language could have the unintended consequence of
forcing facilities that already have a title V permit to obtain a new
permit. The commenter provided suggested language to clarify the
requirement.
    Response: Although facilities with a title V permit do not have to
obtain a new title V permit as a result of this area source rule,
sources that already have a title V permit must include the
requirements of this rule through a permit reopening or at renewal
according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit
program. See 40 CFR 70.7(f).
4. Performance Tests
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the provision allowing use
of a previous performance test to demonstrate compliance be revised to
include a time frame for action by the permitting authority. The
commenter expressed concern that the facility may be exposed to a
compliance risk if the source submits a test and the permitting
authority deems the prior test unacceptable. The commenter was
concerned that the requirement to test within 180 days of the
compliance date would not be adequate if permitting authority has
delayed action on the source's notification of compliance status
report. The commenter provided rule language that would require that
the prior test be deemed approved if not deemed unacceptable within 60
days.
    Response: We agree that in the rare event that a permitting
authority takes months to deem that a prior test is unacceptable, there
may not be sufficient time to arrange and conduct a performance test
within 180 days of the compliance date. We are revising the provision
in the rule to state that if a permitting authority determines a prior
performance test is unacceptable to demonstrate compliance, a
performance test must be performed with 180 days of the compliance date
or within 90 days of receipt of the notification of disapproval of the
prior test, whichever is later.
5. Funding for State and Local Agencies
    Comment: One commenter stated that in order for these rules to be
implemented properly, EPA should provide sufficient additional funds to
State and local clean air agencies. The commenter said that in recent
years, Federal grants for State and local air programs have amounted to
only about one-third of what they should be, and budget requests for
the last two years have called for additional cuts. According to the
commenter, additional area source programs, which are not eligible for
title V fees, will require significant increases in resources for State
and local air agencies beyond what is currently provided. The commenter
claims that without increased funding, some State and local air
agencies may

not be able to adopt and enforce additional area source rules.
    Response: State and local air programs are an important and
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these
programs; however, we do not believe that this issue can be addressed
through today's rulemaking.
    EPA today is promulgating standards for the EAF Steelmaking area
source category that reflect what constitutes MACT for mercury
emissions and GACT for the Urban HAP other than mercury for which the
source category was listed. MACT and GACT standards are technology-
based standards. The level of State and local resources needed to
implement these rules is not a factor that we consider in determining
what constitutes GACT or MACT. Moreover, we note that the rule for EAF
steelmaking facilities requires all affected facilities to have a title
V permit; consequently, the comment about loss of fees from title V
permit exemptions is not pertinent for this rule.
    Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through today's
rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to
working with State and local agencies to implement this rule. State and
local agencies that receive grants for continuing air programs under
CAA section 105 should work with their project officer to determine
what resources are necessary to implement and enforce the area source
standards. EPA will continue to provide the resources appropriated for
section 105 grants consistent with the statute and the allotment
formula developed pursuant to the statute.
6. Secondary Nonferrous Metal Production
    Comment: One commenter asked that EPA clarify that the rule does
not apply to EAFs that are used to produce nonferrous metals, where
nonferrous metal means ``any pure metal other than iron or any metal
alloy for which a metal other than iron is its major constituent by
percent in weight.''
    Response: We agree. The types of facilities identified by the
commenter are covered under other source categories depending on the
type of metal produced (e.g., secondary nonferrous metals, secondary
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.)

V. Impacts of the Final Rule

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule does not impose
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to the final rule.

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to the Executive Order because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113, 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and
applicable VCS.
    This final rule involves technical standards. EPA cites the
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Method 9095B,
``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2, November 2004)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14); and ASTM D2216-05,
``Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14).
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, 9095B, or ASTM D2216-05. The
search and review results are in the docket for this final rule.
    One VCS was identified as applicable to this final rule. The
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is
cited in this final rule for its manual method for measuring the
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas.
This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 3B.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other
VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for
measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions
standards in this final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test
methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for
this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for this final rule.
    For the methods required or referenced by this final rule, a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under Sec.  63.7(f)
and Sec.  63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding paragraph (b)(63);
0
b. By revising paragraph (i)(1); and
0
c. By adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv).

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (63) ASTM D2216-05, ``Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass,''
IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic liquids'' in Sec.
63.10692.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii),
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3),
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2),
63.9323(a)(3), 63.10686(d)(1(iii), 63.10702, 63.11148(e)(3)(iii),
63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and
(g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and Table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' revision 2,
November 2004, IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic
liquids'' in Sec.  63.10692.
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYY to read as follows:

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

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

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

Standards and Compliance Requirements

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

Other Information and Requirements

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

Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63

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

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.10680  Am I subject to this subpart?

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

Sec.  63.10681  What are my compliance dates?

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

Standards and Compliance Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture system that
collects the emissions from each EAF (including charging, melting, and
tapping operations) and argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel and
conveys the collected emissions to a control device for the removal of
particulate matter (PM).
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, you must
not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or
AOD vessel any gases which:
    (1) Exit from a control device and contain in excess of 0.0052
grains of PM per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and
    (2) Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
    (c) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that
has a production capacity of less than 150,000 tons per year (tpy) of
stainless or specialty steel (as determined by the maximum production
if specified in the source's operating permit or EAF capacity and
maximum number of operating hours per year), you must not discharge or
cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or AOD vessel any
gases which:
    (1) Exit from a control device and contain particulate matter (PM)
in excess of 0.8 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of steel. Alternatively, the
owner or operator may elect to comply with a PM limit of 0.0052 grains
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and
    (2) Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, you
must conduct performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with
the applicable emissions limit for each emissions source subject to an
emissions limit in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct each PM performance test for an EAF or AOD
vessel according to the procedures in Sec.  63.7 and 40 CFR 60.275a
using the following test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1, A-
2, A-3, and A-4:
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack
or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control
device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no control device
is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part
60 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. You may use ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
the PM concentration. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a PM
performance test. For EAF, sample only when metal is being melted and
refined. For AOD vessels, sample only when the operation(s) are being
conducted.
    (2) You must conduct each opacity test for a melt shop according to
the procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) and Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR
part 60. When emissions from any EAF or AOD vessel are combined with
emissions from emission sources not subject to this subpart, you must
demonstrate compliance with the melt shop opacity limit based on
emissions from only the emission sources subject to this subpart.
    (3) During any performance test, you must monitor and record the
information specified in 40 CFR 60.274a(h) for all heats covered by the
test.
    (4) You must notify and receive approval from the Administrator for
procedures that will be used to determine compliance for an EAF or AOD
vessel when emissions are combined with those from facilities not
subject to this subpart.
    (5) To determine compliance with the PM emissions limit in
paragraph (c) of this section for an EAF or AOD vessel in a lb/ton of
steel format, compute the process-weighted mass emissions
(Ep) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE07.004

Where:

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

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

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

Other Information and Requirements

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

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

Sec.  63.10691  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA or a
delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal
agency, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out
if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator and are not transferred to the State,
local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under
40 CFR 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
40 CFR 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40
CFR 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined
in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (6) Approval of a program for the removal of mercury switches under
Sec.  63.10685(b)(2).

Sec.  63.10692  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel means any closed-bottom,
refractory-lined converter vessel with submerged tuyeres through which
gaseous mixtures containing argon and oxygen or nitrogen may be blown
into molten steel for further refining.
    Capture system means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans,
dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport emissions generated by an
electric arc furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization vessel to the air
pollution control device.
    Chlorinated plastics means solid polymeric materials that contain
chlorine in the polymer chain, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PVC
copolymers.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by an
electric arc furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization vessel.
    Deviation means any instance where an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or work
practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a furnace that produces molten
steel and heats the charge materials with electric arcs from carbon
electrodes. An electric arc furnace consists of the furnace shell,
roof, and the transformer.
    Electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility means a steel plant
that produces carbon, alloy, or specialty steels using an EAF. This
definition excludes EAF steelmaking facilities at steel foundries and
EAF facilities used to produce nonferrous metals.
    Free organic liquids means material that fails the paint filter
test by EPA Method 9095B, (revision 2, dated November 1994)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) after accounting for water
using a moisture determination test by ASTM Method D2216-05
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14). If, after conducting a
moisture determination test, if any portion of the material passes
through and drops from the filter within the 5-

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

Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63

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

           Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYYY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Subject          Applies to subpart YYYYY?         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),   Applicability.........  Yes........................
 (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12),
 (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2),
 (c)(5), (e).
Sec.   63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9),    Reserved..............  No.........................
 (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Yes........................
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and               Yes........................
                                      Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited Activities   Yes........................
                                      and Circumvention.
Sec.   63.5........................  Preconstruction Review  Yes........................
                                      and Notification
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5),       Compliance with         Yes........................
 (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),      Standards and
 (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-      Maintenance
 (e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1),        Requirements.
 (h)(2), (h)(5)-(h)(9), (i), (j).
Sec.   63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4),   Reserved..............  No.........................
 (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
 (h)(5)(iv).
Sec.   63.7........................  Applicability and       Yes........................
                                      Performance Test
                                      Dates.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b),      Monitoring              Yes........................  Requirements apply if
 (c), (d), (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g).      Requirements.                                        a COMS or CEMS is
                                                                                used.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............  No.........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Additional Monitoring   No.........................
                                      Requirements for
                                      Control Devices in
                                      Sec.   63.11.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous Monitoring   Yes........................  Requirements apply if
                                      System Requirements.                                 a COMS or CEMS is
                                                                                used.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  RATA Alternative......  Yes........................  Requirements apply if
                                                                                a CEMS is used.
Sec.   63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2),      Notification            Yes........................
 (b)(5), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h)(1)-  Requirements.
 (h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i), (j).
Sec.   63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)..........  Reserved..............  No.........................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)..................  ......................  No.........................
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-  Recordkeeping and       Yes........................  Additional records for
 (v), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1),    Reporting                                            CMS in Sec.
 (c)(5)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(15),      Requirements.                                        63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)-
 (d), (e)(1)-(e)(4), (f).                                                                  (15), and reports in
                                                                                Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-
                                                                                (2) apply if a COMS
                                                                                or CEMS is used.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  CMS Records for RATA    Yes........................  Requirements apply if
                                      Alternative.                                         a CEMS is used.
Sec.   63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)..  Reserved..............  No.........................
Sec.   63.11.......................  Control Device          No.........................
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.12.......................  State Authority and     Yes........................
                                      Delegations.
Sec.  Sec.   63.13-63.16...........  Addresses,              Yes........................
                                      Incorporations by
                                      Reference,
                                      Availability of
                                      Information,
                                      Performance Track
                                      Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P