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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424; EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360; EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0940; FRL-
      ]

RIN 2060-AM12

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources:  Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, and
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is issuing national emission standards for the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous
Metals Processing area source categories.  Each of these three final
emissions standards reflects the generally available control technology
or management practices used by sources within the respective area
source category.

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 rule are approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360 (for Glass Manufacturing), and Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0940 (for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing).  All
documents in the docket are listed in the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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 through
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For questions about the final rule for
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Mr. Bill Neuffer, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS> For
questions about the final rule for Glass Manufacturing or Secondary
Nonferrous Metals Processing, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

	The supplementary 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 Final Area Source Standards

III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal

A.  Area Source NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

B.  Area Source NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing

C.  Area Source NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

IV.  Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V Permitting
Requirements

V.  Summary of Comments and Responses

A.  Area Source NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

B.  Area Source NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing

C.  Area Source NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

D.  Area Source NESHAP- General

VI. Impacts of the Final Area Source Standards

A.  Glass Manufacturing

B.  Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

C.  Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

VII.  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 Concerning Regulations 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 categories and entities potentially affected by these
final standards include:

Category	NAICS code1	Examples of regulated

entities

Industry:

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing	327122

327111

327112	Area source facilities that manufacture ceramic wall and floor
tile, vitreous plumbing fixtures, sanitaryware, vitreous china tableware
and kitchenware, and/or pottery.

Glass Manufacturing	327211

327212

327213	Area source facilities that manufacture flat glass, glass
containers, and other pressed and blown glass and glassware.

Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing	331492

331423	Area source brass and bronze ingot making, secondary magnesium
processing, or secondary zinc processing plants that melt post-consumer
nonferrous metal scrap to make products including bars, ingots, and
blocks, or metal powders.2

1 North American Industry Classification System.

2 The Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category was
originally established under SIC code 3341, a broader classification
which included brass and bronze ingot makers.  The corresponding NAICS
code for brass and bronze ingot makers is 331423.

	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 is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11435 of
subpart RRRRRR (national emissions standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources), 40
CFR 63.11448 of subpart SSSSSS (NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing Area
Sources), and 40 CFR 63.11462 of subpart TTTTTT (NESHAP for Secondary
Nonferrous Metals Processing).  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 the 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/"
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
these final rules 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 these final rules
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public
comment can 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 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.  Moreover, under
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rules
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 these final rules
may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

II.  Background Information for Final Area Source Standards

	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 from
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 38706, 38715-716, 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 source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) within the timeframe 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) and 112(k)(3)(B).

	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 53838), we proposed
NESHAP for the following three listed area source categories:  (1) Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing; (2) Glass Manufacturing; and (3) Secondary
Nonferrous Metals Processing as part of our effort to meet the December
15, 2007 deadline.  The standards for the other categories are being
issued in separate actions.

	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.”  Under section 112(d)(5), the
Administrator has the discretion to use generally available control
technology or management practices (GACT) in lieu of MACT.  As explained
in the proposed NESHAP, we are setting standards for these three source
categories pursuant to section 112(d)(5).  See 72 FR 53840, September
20, 2007.

III.  Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal

	This section summarizes the final rules and identifies changes since
proposal.  For changes that were made as a result of public comments, we
have provided detailed explanations of the changes and the rationale for
the changes in the responses to comments in section V of this preamble.

A.  Area Source NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

1.  Applicability and Compliance Dates

	The only substantive changes to the Clay Ceramics rule made since
proposal are clarifications of applicability.  There was an error in the
wording of the applicable compliance dates, and we have revised the rule
since proposal to clarify that an affected source is existing if
construction or reconstruction was commenced on or before September 20,
2007, and an affected source is new if construction or reconstruction
was commenced after September 20, 2007.  These clarifications of
existing and new source are consistent with the definitions specified in
§63.2.

	The final standards apply to any new or existing affected source at a
clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is an area source and uses
more than 45 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (50 tons per year (tpy)) of
clay.  The affected source are all kilns that fire glazed ceramic ware
and all atomized spray glaze operations located at such a facility.

	The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply with
the standards by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
The owner or operator of a new affected source is required to comply
with the standards by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] or upon startup, whichever is later.

2.  Standards

	The Clay Products Manufacturing area source category (which included
clay ceramics manufacturing) was listed for regulation under section
112(c)(3) for its contribution of the following urban HAP:  chromium,
lead, manganese, and nickel.  No changes have been made since proposal
to the standards for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities.

	For each kiln firing glazed ceramic ware, the final standards require
the facility owner or operator to maintain the kiln peak temperature
below 1540°C (2800°F) and either use natural gas, or an equivalent
clean-burning fuel, as the kiln fuel.  The facility owner or operator
has the option of using an electric-powered kiln.

	The requirements for atomized spray glaze operations at clay ceramic
manufacturing area source facilities differ depending on whether a
facility has annual wet glaze usage above or below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy).
Consequently, we are requiring that the facility owner or operator
maintain annual wet glaze usage records in order to document whether
they are above or below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) wet glaze usage.

	For each atomized spray glaze operation located at a clay ceramics
manufacturing facility that uses more than 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) of wet
glaze(s), the final standards require the facility owner or operator to
have an air pollution control device (APCD) on their glazing operations
and operate and maintain the control device according to the equipment
manufacturer’s specifications.  As a pollution prevention alternative
to this requirement, we are also providing the option to use glazes
containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP for
those facilities above the threshold, which is expected to provide
emissions reductions equivalent or greater than those obtained using
particulate matter (PM) controls.

	For each atomized spray glaze operation located at a clay ceramics
manufacturing facility that uses 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) or less of wet
glaze(s), the final standards require the facility owner or operator to
employ waste minimization practices in their glazing operations.  In the
preamble to the proposed rule, we acknowledged that some of these
smaller facilities operate their atomized spray glaze operations with
APCDs or use glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay
ceramics metal HAP.  These alternative compliance options achieve
reductions in metal HAP emissions that are at least equivalent to the
metal HAP reductions from the waste minimization practices.  Therefore,
the final rule includes the use of glazes containing less than 0.1
(weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP or an APCD as alternative
compliance options for the waste minimization practices.

3.  Compliance Requirements

	No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance requirements
for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities.

	Initial compliance demonstration requirements.  The owner or operator
is required to include a compliance certification for the standards in
their Notification of Compliance Status.  For any wet spray glaze
operations controlled with an APCD, an initial inspection of the control
equipment must be conducted within 60 days of the compliance date and
the results of the inspection included in the Notification of Compliance
Status.

	Monitoring requirements.  For each kiln firing glazed ceramic ware, the
final standards require the owner or operator to conduct a check of the
kiln peak firing temperature on a daily basis.  If the peak firing
temperature exceeds 1540°C (2800°F), the owner or operator must take
corrective action according to the facility’s standard operating
procedures.

	For all sources that operate an APCD for their atomized spray glaze
operations, we are requiring daily and weekly visual APCD inspections,
daily EPA Method 22 visible emissions (VE) tests (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7), or an EPA-approved alternative monitoring program to
ensure that the APCD is kept in a satisfactory state of maintenance and
repair and continues to operate effectively.

	The owner or operator is allowed to use existing operating permit
documentation to meet the monitoring requirements, provided it includes
the necessary monitoring records (e.g., the date, place, and time of the
monitoring; the person conducting the monitoring; the monitoring
technique or method; the operating conditions during monitoring; and the
monitoring results).

	Notification and recordkeeping requirements.  We are requiring that
affected sources submit Initial Notifications and Notifications of
Compliance Status according to the part 63 General Provisions.
Facilities must submit the notifications by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

B.  Area Source NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing

1.  Summary of Changes Since Proposal

	Applicability

	We have revised the applicability criteria of the rule in §63.11448 to
clarify that periodic or pot furnaces are not part of the source
category.  The final rule applies only to glass manufacturing plants
that operate continuous furnaces and use one or more of the glass
manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials.

	In light of the changes made to the applicability criteria in
§63.11448, we added a new paragraph to §63.11449(a)(1), which states
that, to be an affected source, the furnace must be a continuous
furnace.  We added a definition of "continuous furnace" to §63.11459 to
further clarify how affected furnace is defined.  We made an additional
revision to §63.11449(a) to clarify that, consistent with the proposed
rule, to be an affected source, a furnace must produce least 45 Mg/yr
(50 tpy) of glass that contains one or more of the glass manufacturing
metal HAP as raw materials.  In the proposed rule, it was unclear
whether a furnace that is used to produce more than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of
glass, but less than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of glass containing metal HAP as
raw materials, would be an affected source.  The revision clarifies that
such a furnace would not be an affected furnace.  Finally, we inserted a
new paragraph §63.11449(b) to clarify that furnaces that are used
exclusively for research and development (R&D) are not part of the
source category and are therefore not subject to regulation under this
final rule.  We also added a definition for "research and development
process unit" to §63.11459.

	In addition, we identified an error in the wording of the applicable
compliance dates, and we have revised §63.11449 since proposal to
clarify that an affected source is existing if construction or
reconstruction was commenced on or before September 20, 2007, and an
affected source is new if construction or reconstruction was commenced
after September 20, 2007.  These clarifications of existing and new
source are consistent with the definitions specified in §63.2.
Finally, we added a paragraph to the regulation to clarify that affected
facilities must obtain a title V permit.

	Performance Test Requirements

	We revised §63.11452(a) by adding paragraph (a)(3), which addresses
the situation in which a facility operates affected furnaces that are
identical.  The new paragraph allows the owner or operator to
demonstrate compliance for all such identical furnaces by testing only
one of the furnaces.  The additional paragraph specifies the criteria
for determining if one furnace is identical to another and the
conditions under which the furnace must be tested.

	Under §63.11452(b), we deleted paragraph (b)(2), which was redundant
and renumbered the remaining paragraphs accordingly.  We revised
§63.11452(b)(8), which formerly was paragraph (b)(9), to state that
sampling ports for performance testing are to be located at the outlet
to the furnace control device or in the furnace stack.  The proposed
rule was unclear regarding the exact location for emission testing.  We
added an alternative test method to Methods 3, 3A, and 3B for gas
molecular weight analysis.  We reorganized the paragraphs that address
testing for PM or metal HAP to clarify which procedures to follow to
determine compliance with the PM emission limit and which procedures to
follow to determine compliance with the metal HAP emission limit.  We
also revised the definition of the metal HAP mass emission rate in
Equation 2, which is signified as the variable "ERM".  This variable
specifies which metals are to be included in the analysis of the
emission samples that are collected during testing.  The revised text
clarifies that ERM represents the combined mass emission rates for only
those glass manufacturing metal HAP that are added as raw materials in
the batch formulation.

	Monitoring and Continuous Compliance Requirements

	We revised the monitoring requirements by adding paragraph
§63.11454(a)(7), which specifies that the required monitoring must be
performed any time the affected furnace is producing glass that is
charged with one or more of the glass manufacturing metal HAP.
Monitoring also must be performed during all transition phases from
glass containing metal HAP to glass that does not contain metal HAP
(i.e., until all HAP-containing glass has left the furnace melter).
These transition phases encompass the period that begins when the plant
stops charging the metal HAP as raw materials and ends when the furnace
is producing a saleable product that does not contain the glass
manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials.

	We revised §63.11455(c) to clarify that the continuous compliance
requirements apply whenever the affected furnace is producing glass that
contains one or more of the glass manufacturing metal HAP, including any
transition phases from metal HAP-containing glass to glass that does not
contain the metal HAP.  We also revised paragraph §63.11455(c) to
clarify the monitoring requirements for existing furnaces versus the
monitoring requirements for new furnaces.  We further revised §63.11455
by adding paragraph (e) to clarify the continuous compliance
requirements for affected furnaces that can meet the emission limits
without the use of a control device.  In such cases, the only
requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance is to meet the
applicable recordkeeping requirements specified in §63.11457.

	Notifications

	We have revised §63.11456 to simplify the section and clarify that the
deadline for submitting the Initial Notification is 120 days after the
furnace becomes subject to the rule, regardless of whether the furnace
is existing or new.

	Definitions

	We have revised several of the definitions specified in §63.11459 and
added a number of new definitions to the section.  We revised the
definition of cullet to clarify that cullet is not considered a raw
material when determining if a furnace is an affected source.  We
revised the definition of a glass melting furnace, which is defined in
the final rule as the process unit in which raw materials are charged
and melted at high temperature to produce molten glass.  The previous
definition included the raw material charging system and other
appendages to the furnace.  However, the revised definition is
consistent with the procedures for testing furnaces to demonstrate
compliance.  We revised the definition of particulate matter by
replacing the modifier "total" with "filterable."  This revision makes
the definition consistent with the test methods specified for
demonstrating compliance with the PM emission limit.  Finally, we
revised the definition of raw material to clarify that it excludes
cullet and material that is recycled from the furnace control device.

	To clarify the applicability requirements in §§63.11448 and 63.11449,
we added the definition of continuous furnace.  To clarify the
performance testing requirements, we have added a definition for furnace
stack.  We also added a definition for identical furnaces, which
pertains to the performance testing requirements for a facility that
operates more than one identical furnace.  Finally, we added a
definition for research and development process unit.  This definition
was needed to clarify in §63.11449(b) that furnaces used strictly for
R&D are not subject to regulation under this final rule.  Glass
manufacturing furnaces used only for R&D were not part of the 1990
inventory and are not part of the listed source category.

	Implementation and Enforcement Authority

	We deleted paragraph §63.11460(c), which was redundant.  We also added
a new paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that EPA retains the authority for
approving alternative test methods.

2.	Summary of Final Rule

	Applicability and Compliance Dates

	This NESHAP applies to any glass manufacturing plant that is an area
source of HAP emissions and operates one or more continuous furnaces
which produce at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of glass per furnace by melting
a mixture of raw materials that includes compounds of one or more of the
glass manufacturing metal HAP.  The rule does not apply to periodic
furnaces or furnaces that are used strictly for research and
development.

	The compliance date for existing sources is [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  However, owners or operators of
affected sources may request an extension of one additional year to
comply with the rule, as allowed under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA
and under §63.6(i)(4)(A), if the additional time is needed to install
emission controls.  The compliance date for new sources is [INSERT DATE
OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or the startup date for the
source, whichever is later.  The compliance date for facilities with no
affected sources as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] and which later change processes or increase production and
trigger applicability of the rule, is 2 years following the date on
which the facility made the process changes or increased production and
thereby became subject to the NESHAP.

	Standards

	The Glass Manufacturing area source category was listed for regulation
under section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the following urban HAP:
 arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel.  The glass
manufacturing final rule requires each new or existing affected furnace
to comply with a PM emission limit of 0.1 gram per kilogram (g/kg) (0.2
pound per ton (lb/ton)) of glass produced or an equivalent metal HAP
emission limit of 0.01 g/kg (0.02 lb/ton) of glass produced.

	Performance Testing

	This final rule requires an initial one-time performance test on each
affected furnace unless the furnace had been tested during the previous
5 years, and the previous test demonstrated compliance with the emission
limits in this rule using the same test methods and procedures specified
in this rule.  This final rule requires testing using EPA Methods 5 or
17 (for PM emissions) or EPA Method 29 (for metal HAP emissions) in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A.  This final rule also allows the owner or
operator of affected identical furnaces to test only one of the furnaces
if certain conditions are met.

	Monitoring

	The owner or operator of an existing affected glass furnace that is
controlled with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) must monitor the
secondary voltage and secondary electrical current to each field of the
ESP continuously and record the results at least once every 8 hours.
The owner or operator of a new affected furnace equipped with an ESP
must install and operate one or more continuous parameter monitoring
systems to continuously measure and record the secondary voltage and
secondary electrical current to each field of the ESP.  Either of these
parameters dropping below established levels provides an indication that
the electrical power to the ESP field in question has decreased, and
collection efficiency may have decreased accordingly.

	Owners or operators of an existing affected glass furnace that is
controlled with a fabric filter must monitor the fabric filter inlet
temperature continuously and record the results at least once every 8
hours.  The owner or operator of a new affected furnace that is equipped
with a fabric filter must install and operate a bag leak detector.

	As an alternative to monitoring ESP secondary voltage and electrical
current or fabric filter inlet temperature, owners or operators of
affected furnaces equipped with either of these control devices have the
option of requesting alternative monitoring, as allowed under §63.8(f).
 The alternative monitoring request must include a description of the
monitoring device or monitoring method to be used; instrument location;
inspection procedures; quality assurance and quality control measures;
the parameters to be monitored; and the frequency with which the
operating parameter values would be measured and recorded.  The owner or
operator of an affected furnace that is equipped with a control device
other than an ESP or fabric filter, or that uses other methods to reduce
emissions, must submit a request for alternative monitoring, as
described in §63.8(f).

	Control Device Inspections

	The owner or operator of an affected furnace must conduct initial and
periodic inspections of the furnace control device.  For fabric filters,
the final rule requires annual inspections of the ductwork, housing, and
fabric filter interior.  For electrostatic precipitators, this final
rule requires annual inspections of the ductwork, hopper, and housing,
and inspections of the ESP interior every 2 years.

	Notification and Recordkeeping

	Owners and operators of all affected glass manufacturing plants that
operate at least one continuous furnace that produces at least 45 Mg/yr
(50 tpy) of glass using any of the glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw
materials must submit an Initial Notification, as required under
§63.9(b).  Any facility with an affected source also must submit a
Notification of Compliance Status, as specified in §63.9(h).

	Owners and operators of glass manufacturing facilities are required to
keep records of all notifications, as well as supporting documentation
for the notifications.  In addition, they must keep records of
performance tests; parameter monitoring data; monitoring system audits
and evaluations; operation and maintenance of control devices and
monitoring systems; control device inspections; and glass manufacturing
batch formulation and production.

C.  Area Source NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

1.  Applicability and Compliance Dates

	There was an error in the wording of the applicable compliance dates,
and we have revised the rule since proposal to clarify that an affected
source is existing if construction or reconstruction was commenced on or
before September 20, 2007, and an affected source is new if construction
or reconstruction was commenced after September 20, 2007.  These
clarifications of existing and new sources are consistent with the
definitions specified in §63.2.

	The final standards apply to any new or existing affected source at an
area source secondary nonferrous metals processing facility.  The
affected source includes all crushing or screening operations at a
secondary zinc processing facility and all furnace melting operations
located at a secondary nonferrous metals processing facility.

	The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply with
the standards by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
The owner or operator of a new affected source is required to comply
with the standards by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], or upon initial startup, whichever is later.

2.  Standards

The Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category was
listed for regulation under section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of
the following urban HAP:  arsenic, chromium, lead, manganese, and
nickel.  We proposed to require the use of a fabric filter or baghouse
that achieves a PM control efficiency of 99 percent for existing sources
and 99.5 percent for new sources.  Since our proposal, we learned that a
facility had insufficient inlet ductwork to conduct a performance test
for determining collection efficiency.  The facility requested that we
add an alternate emission limit expressed as an outlet concentration
limit to the final standards.

As we noted in the proposed rule, the 10 existing facilities reported
using baghouses on crushing or screening operations at secondary zinc
facilities and on furnace melting operations at all facilities and that
such baghouses performed at a PM collection efficiency of at least 99
percent or achieved an outlet PM concentration not exceeding 0.050 grams
per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.022 grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)) where collection efficiency was not reported.
Based on available outlet concentration data from ICR responses in the
proposal docket and consideration of baghouse performance at similar
sources, we have determined that limiting outlet PM concentrations to
0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) and 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) would
control PM and metal HAP emissions at levels that are equivalent to the
levels of control from using a baghouse with a control efficiency of 99
and 99.5 percent, respectively.  Because both the proposed control
efficiency standards and the equivalent outlet concentration limits
reflect the GACT levels of control, we have revised the proposed
standards to include the outlet concentration limits as alternatives to
the control efficiency standards.

	The final standards require the owner or operator of an existing
affected source to route the emissions from the affected source through
a fabric filter or baghouse that achieves a control efficiency of at
least 99.0 percent or an outlet PM concentration limit of 0.034 g/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf).  The owner or operator of a new affected source must
route the emissions from the affected source through a fabric filter or
baghouse that achieves a control efficiency of at least 99.5 percent or
an outlet PM concentration limit of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf).

3.  Compliance Requirements

	Performance test requirements.  The owner or operator of any existing
or new affected source must conduct a one-time initial performance test
on the affected source.  However, a new performance test is not required
for existing affected sources that were tested within the past 5 years
of the compliance date if the test was conducted using the same
procedures specified in the standards and either no process changes had
been made since the test, or the owner or operator demonstrates that the
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrated compliance despite process changes.  The tests for new and
existing affected sources are to be conducted using EPA Method 5 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or EPA Method 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-6.

	Initial control device inspection.  The owner or operator of each
existing and new affected source is required to conduct an initial
inspection of each baghouse.  The owner or operator must visually
inspect the system ductwork and baghouse unit for leaks and inspect the
inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric filter
condition.  The owner or operator must record the results of the
inspection and any maintenance action taken.

	For each installed baghouse which is in operation during the 60 days
after the compliance date, the owner or operator must conduct the
initial inspection no later than 60 days after the applicable compliance
date.  For an installed baghouse which is not in operation during the 60
days after the compliance date, the owner or operator is required to
conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the baghouse.  An
initial inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not
required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

	Monitoring requirements.  For existing affected sources, the owner or
operator must conduct either daily visible emission (VE) tests using EPA
Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or weekly visual inspections of
the baghouse system ductwork for leaks, as well as annual inspections of
the interior of the baghouse to determine its structural integrity and
to determine the condition of the fabric filter.  For new affected
sources, the owner or operator must operate and maintain a bag leak
detection system for each baghouse used to comply with the standards.
The final standards require the owner or operator to keep records of the
date, place, and time of the monitoring; the person conducting the
monitoring; the monitoring technique or method; the operating conditions
during monitoring; and the monitoring results.

Notification and recordkeeping requirements.  The owner or operator of
an affected source must submit an Initial Notification and Notification
of Compliance Status.  The Notification of Compliance status must
include, among other information, the results from the one-time initial
performance test and certifications of compliance for the standards.  We
proposed to require facilities to submit both notifications no later
than 120 days after the applicable compliance date regardless of whether
they were required to conduct a performance test.  Since our proposal,
we discovered that, although we had intended to allow sources 180 days
from the compliance date to conduct the initial performance test and an
additional 60 days to submit the results of the performance test, the
proposed rule implicitly shortened that time frame by 120 days because
it required that the Notification of Compliance status include the
performance test results and be submitted within 120 days of the
compliance date.  Therefore, to afford sources the full time to conduct
the performance test and submit the results of the testing, we have
revised our proposal in this final rule to require that sources required
to do performance testing submit the Notification of Compliance Status
before the close of business of the 60th day following the completion of
a performance test.

IV.  Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V Permitting
Requirements

We did not receive any comments on our proposal to exempt facilities in
the Clay Ceramics and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source
categories from title V permitting requirements.  Therefore, this final
rule does not require facilities in these source categories to obtain an
operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or part 71.

The proposed Glass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP would have required
affected facilities to obtain title V permits. Although we received
public comments requesting that we exempt the Glass Manufacturing Area
Source Category from title V, we are finalizing the approach in the
proposed rule and are not exempting the source category from title V.
The reasons for this decision are summarized in this notice in the
Summary of Comments and Responses section for the Area Source NESHAP for
Glass Manufacturing.

V.  Summary of Comments and Responses

A.  Area Source NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

	Comment:  One commenter noted that the intent of the CAA, as it relates
to the Area Source Program, was to bring about reductions in HAP
emissions from area sources.  The commenter expressed disappointment
that some of the rules proposed under the Area Source Program (e.g.,
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing) will not result in emissions reductions and
recommended that future area source rules incorporate provisions that
will provide additional public health protection from the effects of HAP
emissions from area sources.

	Response:  As previously explained, we have determined that GACT for
the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source category is (1) maintaining
the peak firing temperatures of kilns firing glaze ceramic ware below
1540°C (2800°F), (2) implementing the equipment requirement (wet
control systems for PM emissions) for glaze spray booths at facilities
with wet glaze usage above 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy), and (3) implementing the
waste minimization practices for glaze spray booths at facilities with
wet glaze usage at or below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy).  The use of PM controls
and waste minimization practices has been shown to be very effective in
controlling PM and metal HAP emissions from this area source category.
Keeping kiln peak firing temperatures below the volatilization
temperatures of the clay ceramics metal HAP in the spray glazes would
also be effective in preventing volatilization of the clay ceramics
metal HAP.

	The commenter does not challenge any aspect of EPA’s proposed GACT
determination for this area source category.  Instead, the commenter
makes a blanket assertion that EPA is not acting consistently with the
purposes of the area source provisions in the CAA (i.e., sections
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)), because it is not requiring emission
reductions beyond the level that is currently being achieved from this
well-controlled source category.  In support of this assertion, the
commenter compares the requirements in the proposed rule to the area
source category’s current emission and control status.  Such a
comparison is flawed and irrelevant.

	Congress promulgated the relevant CAA area source provisions in 1990 in
light of the level of area source HAP emissions at that time.  Congress
directed EPA to identify not less than 30 HAP which, as a result of
emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to public
health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list sufficient area
source categories to ensure that sources representing 90 percent of the
30 listed HAP are subject to regulation.  As explained in the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing decisions on the
baseline National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the Agency compiled for
purposes of implementing its air toxics program after the 1990 CAA
Amendments (64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10).  The baseline NTI reflected HAP
emissions from clay manufacturing area sources in 1990.  Thus, contrary
to the commenter’s suggestion, the relevant emission level for
comparison is the emission level reflected in our baseline NTI, not the
current emission level.

	Furthermore, in promulgating the area source provisions in the CAA,
Congress did not require EPA to issue area source standards that must
achieve a specific level of emission reduction.  Rather, Congress
authorized EPA to issue standards under section 112(d)(5) for area
sources that reflect GACT for the source category.  To qualify as being
generally available, a GACT standard would most likely be an existing
control technology or management practice.  Thus, it is not surprising
that the GACT standard being finalized today codifies the existing
effective HAP control approach being used by sources in the category.
For the reasons stated above, this final rule is consistent with
sections 112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B), and 112(d)(5).

B.  Area Source NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing

1.  Definition of Source Category

	Comment:  Three commenters from companies that make stained glass
commented that they own small facilities that operate, with one
exception, small periodic furnaces (pot furnaces) that are charged with
small amounts of the glass manufacturing metal HAP.  They claim that
their furnaces would be subject to the emission standards because they
use the metal HAP and exceed the 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) threshold.  However,
these companies allege that the costs of installing controls on their
furnaces could put them out of business.  One commenter stated that some
artisans and schools also would be subject to the proposed rule based on
the applicability criteria.  Two of the commenters suggested that the
rule exempt small businesses due to the burden that would result from
complying with the proposed requirements.  One commenter stated that the
rule was based on an analysis of the glass manufacturing industry using
data on large continuous furnaces that did not account differences in
the manufacturing process and emissions associated with stained glass
manufacturing.  The commenter stated that the rule should exempt
periodic furnaces.

	Response:  After reviewing the emissions inventory in support of the
listing decisions made pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k) and
available information, we have concluded that the glass manufacturing
area source category was listed based on emissions from relatively large
manufacturing plants that operated continuous glass furnaces.  Periodic
furnaces were not included in the inventory.

	The 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) threshold that was proposed was meant to define
the source category to include only these large manufacturers, but did
not properly reflect this criterion.  Therefore, we have revised
§63.11448 to specify that periodic or pot furnaces are not subject to
the final Glass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP. We believe this
revision will address most of the concerns of the stained glass
manufacturing sector as well as other sectors and organizations, such as
artisans, schools, studios, and other small facilities that produce
glass using periodic furnaces.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that flat glass should be excluded from
the area source category for several reasons.  According to the
commenter, flat glass was not identified in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy as a source category for regulation.  Therefore, the
commenter suggests that EPA cannot regulate the flat glass industry
under an area source standard.  The commenter added that the
administrative record refers only to pressed and blown glass, which has
different Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes than does flat glass
manufacturing.  The commenter also stated that the administrative record
lacks evidence that flat glass manufacturers emit significant quantities
of Urban HAP.  The commenter pointed out that the Arsenic NESHAP does
not apply to flat glass manufacturing for this same reason.  Finally,
the commenter stated that the proposed rule would not require any flat
glass manufacturing plants to install or operate emission control
devices.

	Response:  As explained in the Federal Register Notice announcing the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38707, July 19, 1999), the
process of listing area source categories for regulation would be an
iterative ongoing approach that would be refined and modified as we
obtained better data on emissions.  Furthermore, as indicated in section
112(e)(4) of the CAA, the listing of a particular source category is not
considered final agency action until we issue emission standards for
that source category.  Therefore, the source category listing is not
necessarily limited only to those sources initially identified by the
listing.  We considered this authority in light of the legislative
history regarding glass manufacturing.  The flat glass industry sector
has always been part of the glass manufacturing industry, as evidenced
by environmental statutes including the glass New Source Performance
Standard (NSPS), the Arsenic NESHAP, as well as numerous State rules
nationwide.  Our study of the glass manufacturing industry includes
container glass, pressed and blown glass, and flat glass sectors; these
are generally similar with respect to the types of raw materials used
and furnaces used to melt those raw materials.

	Regarding the comment that the administrative record lacks evidence
that flat glass manufacturers emit significant quantities of Urban HAP,
we point out that the record does show that some flat glass plants emit
some of the glass manufacturing metal HAP.  Because several flat glass
manufacturers do use the glass manufacturing metal HAP in their
formulations, and emit metal HAP as a result, because the raw materials
and the melting process are the focal points of the proposed Glass
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, and because of evidence in the
legislative history, we determined that it was appropriate to include
flat glass within the area source category.

	 Based on our knowledge of the flat glass industry, the commenter is
correct that no existing flat glass plants would have to install
additional controls to comply with this final rule.  However, there are
existing flat glass plants that use the metal HAP as raw materials and
will be subject to the other requirements of this final rule.  Our data
indicate these plants currently meet the emission limits and keep
detailed records.  Therefore, their additional burden as a result of
this final rule is only related to notifications, which we believe are
justified.    The notification requirements apply only if the plant uses
one or more of the glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials; if
the plant does not use any of the glass manufacturing metal HAP, this
final rule does not apply.  In the event that other flat glass
manufacturers decide to change their current glass formulations to
include metal HAPs, it is appropriate that those flat glass plants be
subject to this final rule.  Even in such an instance, an existing
facility that changed their formulation such that it became subject to
the requirements of the rule would have 2 years following the
formulation change to comply with this final rule.  For these reasons,
we have concluded that inclusion of flat glass manufacturers in the
Glass Manufacturing Area Source Category is warranted.

	Comment:  One commenter requested clarification that the proposed rule
applies only to area sources and not major sources of HAP emissions.

	Response:  As specified in §63.11448, the Glass Manufacturing Area
Source NESHAP applies only to area sources of the glass manufacturing
metal HAP.

2.  Definition of Affected Source

	Comment:  Two commenters stated that, although the 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy)
furnace threshold was meant to exclude small manufacturers, the proposed
threshold is less than the amounts that some stained glass
manufacturers, glass studios, and schools produce.  The commenters
believe that a higher threshold level is warranted to ensure that the
small facilities that were meant to be excluded would not be subject to
this final rule.

	Response:  Although we considered revising the definition of affected
source in response to the commenters’ concerns, we have no data to
indicate a specific higher threshold and why that threshold would be
more appropriate than the 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) level specified in the
proposed rule.  However, based on our review of the comments received on
the proposed rule and the available data, we have decided to clarify
that this final rule only applies to continuous furnaces and not to
periodic furnaces.  We believe this clarification ameliorates the
commenters’ concerns regarding the production threshold.  In this
final rule, we have revised §63.11448 to apply only to facilities that
use continuous furnaces to produce glass.

	Comment:  Two commenters expressed concern with the definition of
affected source (i.e., furnace).  Both commenters stated that the
definition in the proposed rule, which was adopted from 40 CFR 60,
subpart CC, Standards of Performances for Glass Manufacturing Plants
(Glass NSPS), defines furnace to include the “raw material charging
system” and “appendages for conditioning and transferring molten
glass to forming machines.”  One commenter pointed out that, in the
proposed rule, compliance is demonstrated by testing the furnace stack.
However, emissions from the “charging system” or “appendages”
are not generally ducted to the furnace stack.  The commenter stated
that furnace was defined as it was in the NSPS to clarify what
constitutes a modification; the definition was not meant to identify
emission points or where stack testing should be performed.  The other
commenter explained that one of the company’s plants adds colored frit
to the molten glass in the forehearth, which is one of the
“appendages” referenced in the definition of furnace.  The commenter
pointed out that emissions from the forehearth are not ducted to the
furnace stack.  Since the GACT analysis for glass furnaces was based on
emissions from furnace stacks, the proposed emission limits should not
apply to emissions from forehearths.

	Response:  In developing the proposed rule, we determined GACT for this
source category based on technology used to reduce emissions from glass
melting furnace stacks.  Glass furnace stacks generally exhaust
emissions from the furnace melter, which is the part of the furnace
where raw materials are charged and melted.  Although furnace stacks may
also exhaust emissions from other parts of, or appendages to, the
furnace, it was our intent to regulate emissions from the furnace
melter.  This is consistent with our understanding of the emissions
profile of glass manufacturing raw materials; that is, metal HAP are
emitted from glass furnaces upon the initial melting step.  Later
remelting of glass, such as cullet and frit, does not re-emit the metal
HAP once the glass has been formed or vitrified.

	To clarify this requirement, we have revised §63.11459 of this final
rule to redefine the glass melting furnace as the “. . . process unit
in which raw materials are charged and melted at high temperature to
produce molten glass.”  In addition, we have added to §63.11459 a
definition of furnace stack as the conduit or conveyance through which
emissions from the furnace melter are released to the atmosphere.  We
also have revised §63.11452 in this final rule to clarify that
compliance with the emission limits is determined by testing the furnace
stack.

	Comment:  One commenter requested that the rule exempt furnaces that
are used strictly for R&D.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that this final rule should
clarify that sources that are used exclusively for R&D purposes are not
regulated by this rule because these sources were not part of the
inventory.  Therefore, we have added a provision to §63.11449 that
clarifies that such furnaces are not covered by this final rule.  We
also have added to §63.11459 of this final rule a definition for
research and development process units.

	Comment:  Three commenters stated that the rule should specify a de
minimis level for metal HAP usage, below which plants would have no
requirements.  Two of the commenters suggested setting annual de minimis
levels for each regulated HAP, below which the rule limit would not
apply.

	Response:  With respect to the use of the glass manufacturing metal HAP
in relatively small amounts, the proposed 0.01 g/kg (0.02 lb/ton) metal
HAP emission limit should address the commenters’ concerns.  If metal
HAP are added to the batch in very small amounts, compliance with the
HAP emission limit could be achieved without having to install a control
device on the affected furnace.

	It is appropriate under the area source program that glass
manufacturers using large amounts of metal HAP in their furnaces install
controls to reduce those emissions.  Therefore, we have concluded that
if would not be appropriate to develop de minimis levels for metal HAP
usage.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the rule does not define
reconstruction as it pertains to reconstructed sources.  The commenter
suggested that the NSPS definition of reconstruction be adopted or
incorporated by reference.

	Response:  Although the proposed rule did not define reconstruction,
§63.11472 states that the definitions specified in the CAA and §63.2
of the General Provisions to part 63 also apply to the proposed rule.
This is the definition of reconstruction that applies to all part 63
standards.  Therefore, we believe it is the appropriate definition for
the Glass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP.

	Comment:  One commenter addressed the applicability of the proposed
rule for furnaces that are used both for making glass that does not
contain metal HAP and glass that contains metal HAP.  The commenter
asked if the 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) threshold that defines an affected source
is based only on the amount of HAP-containing glass produced or on the
total amount of glass produced, even if the amount of HAP-containing
glass was less than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy).

	Response:  It was our intent for the rule to apply to furnaces that
produce as least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of glass that contains one or more of
the glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials.  Therefore, a
furnace that produces more than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of glass would not be
subject to this final rule if the amount of HAP-containing glass
produced in the furnace were less than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy).  We have
revised the definition of affected source in §63.11449 to clarify that
a source is an affected source only if it produces at least 45 Mg/yr (50
tpy) of glass that contains one or more of the metal HAP as raw
materials.

3.  Regulated Pollutants

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the rule should not regulate
arsenic because arsenic emissions are already regulated under the Glass
Arsenic NESHAP.  The commenter believes that the requirements for both
rules will create overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements.
The commenter added that the reporting and recordkeeping burden for a
second rule to regulate the same pollutant would be excessive.

	Response:  The listing of glass manufacturing as an area source
category was based in part on arsenic, which was identified in the
section 112(k) inventory as one of the HAP emitted by glass
manufacturing facilities.  Therefore, we are required under sections
112(c)(3) and (d) of the CAA to regulate emissions of arsenic from glass
manufacturing plants that are area sources of HAP based on GACT for the
glass manufacturing industry.

	With respect to the burden associated with complying with both rules,
we have tried to minimize the burden associated with the Glass
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP.  This final rule will require affected
plants to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of
Compliance Status, but will require no additional reporting.
Furthermore, the recordkeeping requirements are similar for both the
proposed rule and the Glass Arsenic NESHAP.  Therefore, we disagree that
the reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with complying with
both rules will be excessive.  With respect to monitoring, the Glass
Area Source NESHAP allows affected sources to request approval of
alternative monitoring, which likely would result in no changes to the
monitoring that is currently performed to comply with the Glass Arsenic
NESHAP.  In terms of testing, the Glass Area Source NESHAP requires only
a one-time test and includes a provision for using data from a previous
emission test conducted within the last 5 years, if the test
demonstrates compliance with the emission limits specified in the Glass
Area Source NESHAP.

4.  Title V Permitting

	Comment:  Two commenters addressed EPA’s decision to not exempt the
Glass Manufacturing Area Source Category from title V permitting.  Both
commenters disagreed with the statement in the preamble to the proposed
rule that all of the facilities that would be affected by the proposed
rule are already subject to title V.  One commenter stated that at least
one of the company’s facilities, which is not subject to title V,
would be subject to the proposed rule.  The commenter also stated that
EPA’s reasons for exempting the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing and
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Source Categories from title V
permitting also apply to the Glass Manufacturing Source Category.  The
other commenter stated that the company operates two plants that are not
currently subject to title V, each with a furnace that would be subject
to the proposed rule.  Although both furnaces are scheduled for
shutdown, the company may reconsider this decision to shut them down if
market conditions change.  The same commenter stated that it is possible
that there are other non-title V facilities that would be subject to the
proposed rule, and that it appears it was EPA's intent for the proposed
rule to not cause additional facilities to become subject to title V.
Both commenters requested that the proposed rule provide title V
exemptions for facilities that are not currently subject to title V
permitting.

	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, 75,323 (Dec. 19, 2005)).  Nowhere in the 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 commenters have identified three glass manufacturer area source
plants that are currently not subject to the operating permit
requirements of CAA title V, which renders incorrect our assertion at
proposal that all glass manufacturers that would be subject to this
final rule were already subject to title V requirements.
Notwithstanding this error, comments and other information in the record
for this rulemaking do not demonstrate that compliance with title V
permitting would be impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome for the sources in this category.  Other than these two
comments, we did not receive information during the comment period
indicating that there are other sources that will be subject to this
rule that do not have title V permits already.  In this case, more than
80 percent of the sources in the category have title V permits, and of
the 3 facilities that do not have such permits, the affected furnaces at
two of those facilities are currently scheduled for shutdown.  Based on
these facts, it is not readily apparent why it would be impracticable,
infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome for sources in this category to
comply with the title V requirements.

	The two commenters that opposed our decision to not exempt the Glass
Manufacturing Area Source Category from title V permitting did not
identify their plants in question, did not explain how those plants
differed in any way from other plants in this category that currently
hold a title V permit, and did not explain how those differences would
be relevant to the criteria for an exemption from title V.

	For example, one commenter supported its request for exempting its two
plants from title V by stating a desire for flexibility in the event
that one or more of the affected furnaces at the plants actually do not
shut down. (As noted above, the commenter’s current plan is to shut
down the affected furnaces at these two facilities.)  Source
flexibility, while important, is not a factor EPA considers in
determining whether to exempt a source from title V permitting
requirements.

	The second commenter seeking a title V exemption for the glass
manufacturing source category asserted that the reasons for exempting
the other two source categories addressed in today’s notice (Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing and Secondary Non-ferrous Metals Processing area
sources) applied equally to this category.  The commenter, however,
offered no information substantiating this assertion, and we cannot
dismiss obvious differences between the glass manufacturing source
category and the source categories which received a title V exemption.
These differences include whether most of the category already has a
title V permit and whether most of the category is composed of small
businesses that would incur economic hardship were title V requirements
imposed on them.

	The decision to exempt a source category is made on a case-by-case
basis according to the facts of the industry.  According to information
we have collected on the glass manufacturing area source category, we
conclude, in the absence of contrary information, that a title V
exemption for this area source category is not warranted.  Therefore, in
light of the lack of information supporting an exemption of this source
category from the title V requirements, we have not exempted the Glass
Manufacturing Area Source Category from title V under today’s rule.

5.  Emission Limits

	Comment:  One commenter stated that, although emissions from glass
furnaces vary by the type of glass produced, the proposed emission
limits do not account for the relationship between PM emissions and
glass type.  The commenter noted that the Glass NSPS accounts for these
differences by specifying different PM emission limits depending on the
glass formulation and fuel type.  The commenter explained that the
differences in PM emissions result from differences in the
volatilization rate of the constituents of the glass recipe.  The
commenter suggested that the proposed rule adopt the NSPS emission
limits to account for these differences and to avoid confusion.

	Response:  While the Glass NSPS does regulate glass manufacturing
furnaces for emissions of PM, the purpose of the proposed area source
NESHAP is to address metal HAP emissions from continuous glass
manufacturing furnaces.

	Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA requires us to develop emission limits to
reduce HAP emissions from area sources based on GACT.  For the Glass
Manufacturing Area Source Category, we determined GACT to be the level
of control achieved by an ESP.  In developing the PM emission limit for
the proposed rule, our approach was to consider all of the available
data on ESP-controlled PM emissions from glass manufacturing furnaces.
Those data do not indicate that the variations in PM emissions due to
glass formulation that are reflected in the emission limits of the Glass
NSPS are appropriate for this rule.  For example, the NSPS emission
limits (in the format of PM emission factors) are higher for pressed and
blown glass formulations than for container or flat glass formulations.
However, the data used in developing the proposed PM emission limit do
not indicate that controlled PM emissions from pressed and blown glass
furnaces are higher than PM emissions from container or flat glass
furnaces.  In fact, the data with the lowest emission factors are from
controlled pressed and blown glass furnaces.  Although there are several
possible explanations for this discrepancy, we point out that the NSPS
emission limits are based on data from the 1970s and may not be
representative of current glass manufacturing furnace PM emissions and
control device performance.  In conclusion, we developed the proposed PM
emission limit based on the best available data, and because those data
do not indicate variations in controlled PM levels due to glass
formulation, we are not adopting the NSPS emission limits or
differentiating by glass formulation, as suggested by the commenter.

	Comment:  One commenter pointed out that many existing glass furnaces
comply with the Glass NSPS using modified processes without having to
install emission controls.  The commenter urged EPA to consider
incorporating in this final rule the alternate emission limits for
modified processes established in the NSPS.  The commenter explained
that the cost to retrofit a glass furnace with a control device is
prohibitive, particularly in view of the amount of metal HAP reduced by
such controls.

	Response:  The Glass NSPS defines modified process as “. . . any
technique designed to minimize emissions without the use of add-on
pollution controls.”  Thus, even though the regulated pollutant for
the Glass NSPS is PM, the term “modified process” can apply to
emissions of any pollutant.  Several glass manufacturing furnaces
subject to the NSPS have used this provision for meeting the less
stringent PM emission limits for modified processes by installing
controls or process modifications to reduce emissions of other
pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx).  However, under Section
112(d) of the CAA, we are required to establish area source standards
specifically for emissions of the Urban HAP.  Furthermore, we are
required to base those emission standards on GACT.  As noted above, we
determined GACT for this source category based on the level of control
achieved by an ESP in controlling metal HAP emissions, and for
controlling PM emissions as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions.

	We understand that the costs of installing an ESP or equivalent control
device on a glass furnace can be high.  For example, we estimate the
capital costs for installing a control device on a typical container
furnace to be $800,000.  However, our economic analysis of the industry
indicates that the compliance costs for this final rule would be no more
than 1 percent of sales, which we do not consider to be prohibitive.
Although the metal HAP emissions reductions from an affected facility
may be relatively low in terms of control costs, we note that, for
facilities that use very small amounts of metal HAP in their glass
formulations, the 0.01 g/kg (0.02 lb/ton) metal HAP emission limit can
be met without having to install a control device.  Finally, in addition
to reductions in HAP emissions, the Glass Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP also will achieve significant reductions in fine PM emissions and
will result in significant health benefits as a result of those
reductions.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the proposed rule should
incorporate factors to account for emissions during periods of low
production, similar to the “zero production rate” factors specified
in the Glass NSPS.  The commenter reasoned that, without these factors,
there will be confusion.  Although the PM emission limit in the proposed
rule (0.1 g/kg (0.2 lb/ton)) is the same as the NSPS limit for container
glass furnaces and for soda lime and lead pressed and blown glass
furnaces, the NSPS includes the zero production rate factor, whereas the
proposed rule does not incorporate such a factor.

	Response:  We appreciate the need to avoid confusion and to promote
clarity in rulemaking, and we are sensitive to the need to implement the
rule with easily understood materials and clear instruction.  To that
end, EPA currently plans to provide implementation guidance to minimize
confusion that may be caused by the applicability of three Federal air
pollution regulations that apply to this industry sector:  the Arsenic
NESHAP, the Glass NSPS, and this Area Source NESHAP.  However, we have
concluded that it would not be appropriate to incorporate one or more
zero production rate factors in the final rule as suggested by the
commenter.  As specified in §63.11452(b)(4), compliance with the
emission limits in the proposed rule must be determined through emission
testing when the furnace is operating at maximum production rate.
Therefore, emission levels when the furnace is operating at low
production rates are not relevant with respect to compliance with the
emission limits.  If the rule were to require demonstrating compliance
with the emission limits on a continuous basis, such as by using a
continuous emissions monitoring system, it could be argued that there is
reason to incorporate a zero production rate factor.  In such a case,
the emission factor would likely increase as production approached zero,
and at zero production, the emission factor would be undefined.
However, that is not the case for the proposed rule, which requires
parameter monitoring and recordkeeping to demonstrate continuous
compliance.  Finally, it should be noted that the proposed emission
limits were developed from data that did not account for zero production
rate emissions.  Furthermore, specifying an emission limit without zero
production rate factors is consistent with other NESHAP.

	Comment:  One commenter questioned whether the proposed emission limits
were based on data exclusively from large furnaces.  The commenter
explained that, when emissions are normalized for production, as is the
case for the proposed emission factor format, they may not be
representative of emissions from small furnaces if the limits are based
on data from large furnaces.  The commenter stated that, since the rule
is likely to apply to small furnaces, the proposed limits should account
for the higher emission factors characteristic of smaller furnaces.  The
commenter’s company operates a small furnace that would be subject to
the rule, as proposed, but would not be able to meet the proposed
emission limit, even though the furnace is exhausted to a fabric filter.
 The commenter stated that a control efficiency of 99.91 percent would
be needed for the furnace to meet the proposed limit.  The commenter
suggested including a correction factor for small furnaces, such as the
zero production rate factors specified in the Glass NSPS, to account for
this difference in emission levels between large and small furnaces.

	Response:  In developing the emission limits for the proposed rule, we
reviewed all available emission test data on controlled furnaces, which
included the results of tests on a wide range of furnace sizes or
production rates.  Because the production data for many of the furnaces
were claimed as confidential business information, we cannot release the
actual production rates to the public.  However, we can provide
information on the range of the data.  The production data for the
furnaces used to develop for the PM emission limit ranged from less than
0.9 megagram per hour (Mg/hr) (1 ton per hour (tph)) to just under 27
Mg/hr (30 tph).  Of the 19 data points used, 3 data points were for
furnaces with production rates of less than 0.9 Mg/hr (1 tph) and 9 data
points were for furnaces with production rates less than 4.5 Mg/hr (5
tph).  To develop the metal HAP emission limit, the furnace production
rates ranged from less than 0.9 Mg/hr (1 tph) to just under 23 Mg/hr (25
tph).  Of the 15 data points used, the production rates for 2 furnaces
were less than 0.9 Mg/hr (1 tph), and the rates for 9 furnaces were less
than 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tph).  Although the commenter did not specify the
actual production rate for the furnace in question, furnaces with
production rates less than 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tph) would most likely be
considered small and furnaces with production rates less than 0.9 Mg/hr
(1 tph) would certainly be considered small.  Therefore, we disagree
with the commenter’s assumption that only data from large furnaces
were used to develop the proposed emission limits.

	Although the commenter’s suggestion about including a zero production
rate factor would reduce the stringency of the standard for small
furnaces, we do not believe such a factor is needed for the reasons
described in the previous paragraph.  Furthermore, as discussed in our
response to the previous comment, we do not believe a zero production
rate factor is relevant for an emission limit that must be demonstrated
by testing when the source is operating at the maximum production rate.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the process of manufacturing glass
tableware is significantly different from container glass due to the
need for higher quality requirements.  The raw material formulations
differ, and tableware furnaces operate at higher temperatures with
longer residence times.  Tableware furnaces also are smaller.  The
commenter stated that the South Coast Air Quality Management District
uses an emission factor for tableware furnaces that is nearly five times
the factor used for container glass furnaces.

	Response:  We acknowledge that PM emissions from glass furnaces can
vary as a function of the type of glass produced.  We also recognize
that glass tableware manufacturing is generally classified as a type of
pressed and blown glass rather than container glass, and PM emission
factors for pressed and blown glass furnaces typically are greater than
PM emission factors for container glass furnaces.  When determining GACT
for the proposed rule, we used all the available data on emissions of PM
and metal HAP from furnaces controlled with ESP.  Most of the data used
in developing the proposed emission factors were from emission tests on
pressed and blown glass furnaces.  Therefore, we believe those emission
limits are generally representative of the emission levels that can be
achieved by an ESP-controlled furnace manufacturing pressed and blown
glass.  We also point out that the NESHAP specifies a metal HAP emission
limit which may be more appropriate for specific furnaces that have
unusually high PM emissions.

	Commenter:  One commenter noted that the proposed GACT does not take
into consideration the unique nature of the stained glass industry,
which generally uses small periodic furnaces rather than large
continuous furnaces to produce glass.  The commenter believes stained
glass manufacturing should be a separate subcategory with GACT defined
in terms of the practices and emission reduction methods followed by
stained glass manufacturers.

	Response:  Although we conducted an extensive information gathering
effort to compile data for developing the proposed NESHAP, we had little
data on the stained glass sector and no basis for identifying stained
glass as a separate subcategory of the glass manufacturing industry.  We
agree with the commenter that GACT for stained glass, if identified as a
subcategory, should be based on methods and practices used by that
sector to reduce metal HAP emissions.  Although we still do not have the
data to warrant creating a separate subcategory for stained glass, we
have revised §63.11448 of the rule to clarify that the rule applies to
continuous furnaces and not to periodic furnaces.  In doing so, we
believe we have addressed the commenter’s concerns.

6.  Compliance Dates

	Comment:  One commenter stated that most glass manufacturing furnaces
are rebuilt every 10 to 15 years.  The commenter suggested that the
compliance date for an existing furnace should coincide with the next
rebuild planned for that furnace.  Otherwise, affected facilities would
have to install controls “on the fly,” and doing so would interrupt
glass production by forcing the facility to shut down affected furnaces
for long periods.  These shutdowns would result in significant costs to
the affected facilities.  The commenter pointed out that these costs
were not accounted for in the estimated cost effectiveness and impacts
for the proposed rule.

	Response:  Section 112(i) of the CAA specifies that NESHAP require
compliance “. . . as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event
later than three years after the effective date. . .” of the standard.
 Since we had no information indicating this would be the case for the
glass manufacturing industry, we proposed a compliance date of 2 years
after promulgation of this final rule, which is consistent with the
compliance date for other NESHAP.  We believe this provision should
allow adequate time for affected sources to install the controls needed
to comply with this final rule.  However, in the event that 2 years in
not adequate, §63.6(i)(3) of the General Provisions to part 63 allows
owners or operators of affected facilities to request a 1-year extension
of the compliance date if they can demonstrate that they need the
additional time to install controls.

	Comment:  One commenter noted that additional time is needed for
reconstructed furnaces to install controls.  The company is rebuilding
several furnaces in 2008, which would make them reconstructed furnaces.
The compliance date for reconstructed sources would be the startup date
(sometime in 2008), but it will take additional time to design, receive,
and install a control device on the reconstructed furnaces.

	Response:  The General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 define "new source"
to include reconstructed sources, and for sources subject to 40 CFR part
63 standards, the compliance date for new sources is dictated by
§63.6(b) of the General Provisions to part 63.  That is, new sources
must be in compliance on the effective date of the rule or upon startup,
whichever is later.  Based on the limited facts submitted by the
commenter, it is unclear if the subject furnaces would be considered
existing furnaces or new furnaces.  The General Provisions to part 63
define "commenced" as it relates to reconstruction as entering ". . .
into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within a
reasonable time, a continuous program of construction or
reconstruction."  The commenter should evaluate the facts of its
particular situations in light of the definitions incorporated into this
final rule.

7.  Other Compliance Requirements

	Comment:  One commenter identified an issue concerning furnaces that
are used both for making glass that does not contain metal HAP and for
making glass that contains metal HAP.  The commenter requested
clarification of the compliance requirements when the affected furnace
is not producing glass that contains metal HAP.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that additional clarification is
needed on furnaces that are used to produce HAP-containing glass and
non-HAP glass.  Our intent was that the emission limits and other
compliance requirements would apply when the affected furnace is
producing glass that contains one or more of the glass manufacturing
metal HAP.  We have revised §63.11454 to clarify that the monitoring
requirements apply only during times when any of the glass manufacturing
metal HAP are used in the glass being produced.  We also have revised
§63.11455 to clarify that the continuous compliance requirements apply
under the same conditions.  However, owners and operators must still
keep the applicable records specified in §63.11457, including records
of production data, during any period when an affected furnace is
operated, regardless of the batch formulation used.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the rule is unclear on the
continuous compliance requirements for existing sources, particularly
for sources that meet the metal HAP emission limit without having to
install a control device.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that additional clarification is
needed regarding continuous compliance requirements for affected
furnaces that meet the emission limit without the use of an emission
control device.  We have revised §63.11455 of this final rule to
clarify how owners or operators of affected sources must demonstrate
continuous compliance.  For the specific case cited by the commenter,
the only continuous compliance requirement would be the recordkeeping
requirements specified in §63.11457.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that, even if a plant could meet the
emission limit without installing a control device, the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the rule are unnecessarily burdensome.

	Response:  We disagree that the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule are overly burdensome.  This final
rule will require affected plants to submit an Initial Notification and
a Notification of Compliance Status, but will require no reporting.  As
for the recordkeeping requirements, the proposed rule incorporates the
basic requirements specified in the General Provisions to part 63, and
our understanding is that most facilities routinely maintain these
records.

8.  Emission Testing

	Comment:  Two commenters requested clarification of how emissions are
tested and analyzed to show compliance with the proposed metal HAP
emission limit.  Both pointed out that the test method (Method 29)
quantifies a wide range of metals, including metals that are not urban
HAP and urban HAP metals that may not have been charged to the furnace
as raw materials but could be present as contaminants in charge
materials or fuels.  The commenters stated that the rule should specify
that emissions should be analyzed only for the metal HAP that are
intentionally added to the batch as raw materials.

	Response:  We agree with the commenters that the testing requirements
specified in the proposed rule need further clarification regarding how
the sampled emissions are analyzed.  We have revised §63.11452 in this
final rule to clarify Equation 2, which is used to determine compliance
with the metal HAP emission limit.  We have defined the variable
“ERM” in this final rule as the sum of the mass emission rates for
the glass manufacturing metal HAP that are charged to the furnace as raw
materials.  We believe this revision addresses the commenters’
concern.

	Comment:  One commenter noted the definition of PM in the rule is
ambiguous and could be interpreted to include filterable PM and
condensible PM.  Because the rule requires testing by Methods 5 or 17,
and both of those methods measure filterable PM, the rule needs to
clarify that the proposed PM emission limit refers to filterable PM.
The commenter suggested that removing the word “total” from the
definition would eliminate this ambiguity.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter and have revised the definition
of PM in §63.11458 by replacing the phrase “total particulate
emissions” with “filterable particulate emissions.”  This revised
definition is consistent with the test methods (Methods 5 and 17) that
are specified for determining compliance.

	Comment:  One commenter operates several identical furnaces that would
be subject to the proposed rule.  The commenter requested that the rule
require testing on only one such furnace rather than on all of them.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that it should not be necessary
to test multiple identical furnaces to demonstrate that all of the
furnaces meet the emission limit.  To address this issue, we revised
§63.11452(a) by adding paragraph (a)(3), which specifies conditions
under which testing of a single furnace would be allowed as the
compliance demonstration for other identical furnaces.  Specifically,
the owner or operator must certify that the furnaces that are not tested
are identical in design to the furnace that is tested, including
manufacturer, dimensions, production capacity, charging method,
operating temperature, fuel type, burner configuration, and exhaust
system configuration and design.  Furthermore, the compliance test must
be performed while the furnace is producing the glass formulation with
the greatest potential to emit the glass manufacturing metal HAP, and
the owner or operator must provide documentation that demonstrates why
the tested glass formulation has the greatest potential to emit metal
HAP.

9.  Other Issues

	Comment:  Two commenters requested clarification of the definition of
raw material.  The commenters stated it was not clear if cullet is
considered a raw material, and they suggested revising the definition to
exclude cullet.  One of the commenters suggested adding the phrase
“excluding glass manufacturing metal HAP that are introduced as
cullet, trace constituents, or contaminants of other substances” to
§§63.11448 and 63.11449(a)(1) to clarify what is considered a raw
material.  The other commenter suggested revising the definition of raw
material to exclude material captured by control devices and recycled
into the process.

	Response:  We agree with the commenters that the proposed rule is not
clear on whether or not cullet is considered a raw material.  We also
agree that material that is captured in a furnace control device and
recycled should not be considered a raw material.  We have revised the
definition of raw material to state that cullet and material captured by
the furnace control device are excluded.  However, this definition does
not exclude material collected from other sources, such as from fabric
filters that are used to control emissions from raw material handling or
transporting, because, while pre-vitrified materials do not re-emit
metal HAP when remelted, baghouse fines from raw material handling and
transporting have not been previously vitrified.

	Comment:  One commenter stated that the rule is unclear as to the
notification requirements for furnaces that, at the time of
promulgation, were not subject, but later become subject due to
increased production or changes in glass formulation.

	Response:  To address the commenter’s concern, we have revised
§63.11456(a) to indicate that the Initial Notification is due 120 days
after the furnace becomes subject to this final rule due to increased
production or changes in glass formulation.  We also have revised
§63.11456(a) to specify deadlines for submitting the Notification of
Compliance Status.

C.  Area Source NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

	Comment:  One commenter noted that the intent of the CAA, as it relates
to the Area Source Program, was to bring about reductions in HAP
emissions from area sources.  The commenter expressed disappointment
that some of the rules proposed under the Area Source Program (e.g.,
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing) will not result in emissions
reductions and recommended that future area source rules incorporate
provisions that will provide additional public health protection from
the effects of HAP emissions from area sources.

	Response:  As previously explained, we have determined that GACT for
the Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category is the
use of a baghouse or fabric filter that achieves a control efficiency of
99 percent for existing sources and 99.5 percent for new sources.  The
use of baghouses and fabric filters has been shown to be very effective
in controlling PM and metal HAP emissions from this area source
category.  The commenter does not challenge any aspect of EPA’s
proposed GACT determination for this area source category.  Instead, the
commenter makes a blanket assertion that EPA is not acting consistently
with the purposes of the area source provisions in the CAA (i.e.,
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)), because it is not requiring
emission reductions beyond the level that is currently being achieved
from this well-controlled source category.  In support of this
assertion, the commenter compares the requirements in the proposed rule
to the area source category’s current emission and control status.
Such a comparison is flawed and irrelevant.

	Congress promulgated the relevant CAA area source provisions in 1990 in
light of the level of area source HAP emissions at that time.  Congress
directed EPA to identify not less than 30 HAP which, as a result of
emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to public
health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list sufficient area
source categories to ensure that sources representing 90 percent of the
30 listed HAP are subject to regulation.  As explained in the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing decisions on the
baseline NTI that the Agency compiled for purposes of implementing its
air toxics program after the 1990 CAA Amendments.  64 FR 38706, 38711,
n.10.  The baseline NTI reflected HAP emissions from glass manufacturing
area sources in 1990.  Thus, contrary to the commenter’s suggestion,
the relevant emission level for comparison is the emission level
reflected in our baseline NTI, not the current emission level.

	Based on EPA’s baseline NTI, emissions of urban metal HAP from this
area source category have been reduced from approximately 25 Mg/yr (28
tpy) to less than 0.9 Mg/yr (1 tpy) since 1990.  Furthermore, in
promulgating the area source provisions in the CAA, Congress did not
require EPA to issue area source standards that must achieve a specific
level of emission reduction.  Rather, Congress authorized EPA to issue
standards under section 112(d)(5) for area sources, and those standards
are to reflect GACT for the source category.  To qualify as being
generally available, a GACT standard would most likely be an existing
control technology or management practice.  Thus, it is not surprising
that the GACT standard being finalized today codifies the existing
effective HAP control approach being used by sources in the category.
For the reasons stated above, this final rule is consistent with
sections 112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B), and 112(d)(5).

D.  Area Source NESHAP-General

	Comment:  A commenter expressed his “understanding that Congress only
gave EPA [the authority] to establish requirements for new . . . [sic]
major sources under the MACT and NSPS standards, and not new area
sources.”  The commenter further claimed that new area sources are the
“jurisdiction” of State and local authorities.  The commenter also
expressed the policy objection “that to allow EPA to establish new and
modified source requirements is tantamount to overriding the authority
given the States and locals for establishing Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) through their new source review programs.”  The
commenter further questioned which standard would apply to a new area
source if EPA established GACT requirements on a new source, and these
requirements were to differ from BACT requirements in the NSR permit for
the source.

	Response:  The comment above raises issues of EPA’s authority for
establishing GACT for new area sources and the appropriateness of
potentially “overriding” locally-made BACT determinations for such
sources.  As generally discussed in the background section of this final
rule, section 112 explicitly requires that EPA list categories of major
sources, 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(1), and area sources if those area sources
meet the listing criteria in 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(3).  Furthermore, the
statute requires EPA to promulgate emission standards for all listed
categories whether the category is composed of major sources of HAP or
area sources and directs that these standards address new as well as
existing sources (42 U.S.C. 7412(d) & 7412(f)(2)).  For area sources,
Congress has provided EPA the option to promulgate GACT in lieu of MACT
standards (42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(5)).  In establishing time frames for
compliance for “any emission standard, limitation or regulation
promulgated under this section [i.e., section 112],” Congress allowed
for different compliance dates for new and existing sources (42 U.S.C.
112(i)(3).  This provision reinforces Congress’s intent that standards
under section 112, including the required area source standards, address
both new and existing sources.  Therefore, the commenter’s
understanding of EPA’s authority does not reflect these express
provisions of the statute.  Based on these statutory provisions, EPA
disagrees with the commenter’s position that EPA lacks authority to
establish GACT for new area sources.

	Regarding the appropriateness of what the commenter calls
“overriding” the authority to set BACT and BACT limits, we agree
that there is a theoretical possibility inherent in the statute to have
a GACT standard differ in stringency with a BACT limit in a permit.
Initially, we note that BACT is triggered by the emission of different
pollutants than those regulated under section 112 (see 42 U.S.C.
7412(b)(6)).  The applicability provisions differ, and a major source
under one program may or may not be a minor or area source under the
other.  Nevertheless, in many circumstances, a BACT limit targeting one
pollutant may also, in effect, limit HAP emissions, and a HAP limit may
incidentally limit a pollutant to which BACT would apply.  It is a
requirement for the owner or operator of a stationary source to comply
with all air pollution control obligations that apply to the source
under the CAA.  To the extent that these obligations conflict and cannot
be met simultaneously, the statute and EPA’s regulations provide
several mechanisms for resolving conflicts (e.g., provisions for
developing alternate control and monitoring requirements, delegation
mechanisms that allow States and local agencies to develop approvable
alternate standards, etc . . .).

	Comment:  One commenter recommended that EPA provide State and local
agencies with sufficient additional grants so that they may participate
in the implementation of additional area source rules.  According to the
commenter, Federal grants currently fall far short of what is needed to
support State and local agencies in carrying out their existing
responsibilities, and budget requests for the last two years have called
for additional cuts.  The commenter claimed that, without additional
funding, some State and local air agencies may not be able to adopt and
enforce additional area source rules.  The commenter further stated
that, even for permitting authorities that do not adopt these area
source rules, it is possible that these rules will increase their work
loads and resource needs.  The commenter stated that, for example,
synthetic minor permits (or Federally Enforceable State Operating
Permits) will need to incorporate all applicable requirements, including
area source standards.  Noting that the title V permit fee funds are not
available for these efforts, the commenter asserted that many State and
local air agencies do not have sufficient resources for these
responsibilities.

	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 this
rulemaking.

	EPA today is promulgating standards for the Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Processing, Glass Manufacturing, and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area
source categories that reflect the practices currently in use by sources
in these area source categories, and these standards represent what
constitutes GACT for these categories under section 112(d)(5).  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 under section 112(d)(5).
Moreover, we note that the commenter did not challenge our proposed
determination to exempt from title V the Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Processing or Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source categories.

	Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through this rulemaking
for the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to working with State
and local agencies to implement this final 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.

VI.  Impacts of the Final Area Source Standards

A.  Glass Manufacturing

1.  Air Quality Impacts

	For the three sources that will be required to install emission
controls to meet the emission limits specified in this final rule, we
estimate nationwide emissions of the glass manufacturing metal HAP to be
26.2 Mg/yr (28.9 tpy).  We estimate that this final rule will reduce
nationwide emissions of the glass manufacturing metal HAP by about 25.6
Mg/yr (28.2 tpy).  This final rule will also reduce emissions of PM by
377 Mg/yr (415 tpy).  These estimates are based on the assumption that
an ESP will be installed on one pressed and blown glass furnace, and
that fabric filters will be installed on two pressed and blown glass
furnaces.

	We project that, during the first three years of the standard, nine new
furnaces will be constructed and that all nine furnaces will be in the
container glass sector.  Because none of these new furnaces are expected
to use any of the glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials, we
project that none of the nine new furnaces will be affected by this
final rule.  Therefore, we estimate that this final rule will have no
air quality impacts on new sources.

	Indirect or secondary air impacts of this final rule will result from
the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control
devices.  Assuming that plants will purchase electricity from a power
plant, we estimate that the final standards will increase secondary
emissions of criteria pollutants, including PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) from power plants.  For the three existing
sources that will be required to install emission controls, this final
rule will increase secondary PM emissions by 0.28 Mg/yr (0.31 tpy);
secondary SO2 emissions by about 11.1 Mg/yr (12.2 tpy); secondary NOX
emissions by about 5.5 Mg/yr (6.1 tpy); and secondary CO emissions by
about 0.18 Mg/yr (0.20 tpy).

	For the estimated nine new sources within the Glass Manufacturing
industry over the next three years, we estimate no secondary air impacts
because we project that none of the new sources will be affected sources
under this rule.

2.  Water and Solid Waste Impacts

	To comply with this final rule, we expect that affected facilities will
control emissions by installing and operating ESP or fabric filters,
neither of which generates wastewater.  Therefore, we project that this
final rule will have no water impacts.  Glass manufacturers typically
purchase highly refined and purified raw materials, and they usually
recycle internal captured baghouse and ESP fines into the raw material
to be fed back into the furnace.  Therefore, we expect the solid waste
impacts to be far less than if facilities were to dispose of their ESP
and baghouse fines.  We estimate that this final rule will generate 37.7
Mg/yr (41.6 tpy) of solid waste from existing sources.  These estimates
are based on the assumption that an ESP will be installed on one pressed
and blown glass furnace, and that fabric filters will be installed on
two pressed and blown glass furnaces.  For new sources, we estimate that
this final rule will have no impacts on solid waste generation.

3.  Energy Impacts

	Energy impacts consist of the electricity and fuel needed to operate
control devices and other equipment that are required under this final
rule.  We assume that affected facilities will comply with this final
rule by installing and operating either ESP or fabric filters, which
require electricity to operate.  Specifically, we assumed that an ESP
will be installed on one pressed and blown glass furnace, and that
fabric filters will be installed on two pressed and blown glass
furnaces.  Under this scenario, we project that this final rule will
increase overall energy demand (i.e., electricity demand) for existing
sources by about 1,970 megawatt-hours per year, or 7.1 thousand
gigajoules per year (6.7 billion British thermal units per year).  We
estimate that none of the nine new sources projected to go into
operation during the first three years of the standard will be affected
by this final rule.  Therefore, we are not expecting any energy impacts
for new sources.

4.  Cost Impacts

	The estimated total capital costs of this final rule for existing
sources are $1.42 million.  These capital costs include the costs to
purchase and install ESP or fabric filters on the three affected
furnaces that are not currently controlled.  The estimated annualized
cost of this final rule for existing sources is $491,000 per year.  The
annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs of the control
and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses,
performance testing, and recordkeeping costs for the three existing
facilities within the source category that will be required to install
new emission controls.  The other affected facilities will incur costs
only for submitting the notifications and for annual control device
inspections because those facilities already meet the testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that are required under this
final rule.

	We estimate that none of the nine new sources projected to go into
operation during the first three years of the standard will be affected
sources under this final rule.  Therefore, we estimate no cost impacts
for new sources.

5.  Economic Impacts

	Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with this final
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can
have an impact in determining how the market will change in response to
the rule.  Total annualized costs for this final rule are estimated to
be approximately $0.48 million.  Only three facilities are estimated to
require additional capital costs because of this final rule.

	We obtained revenue data for two of the three companies that operate
facilities that will be required to install emission controls under this
final rule.  Based on those data, cost-to-sales estimates for those two
affected facilities are 0.66 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively.
Revenue data were not available for the other facility that will be
affected by this final rule, so the national average value of shipments
per worker from the 2002 Census of Manufacturers was used along with the
average number of workers per facility to estimate revenues.  The
resulting costs for this and the other two facilities are relatively
small and are not expected to result in a significant market impact
whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the company.

B.	Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

	Unlike the glass manufacturing industry, which still has some
uncontrolled sources of urban HAP, sources in the clay ceramics
manufacturing source category have made significant emission reductions
through process changes and installation of control equipment.  Affected
sources are well-controlled, and our GACT determination reflects such
controls.  We estimate that the only impact to affected sources is the
labor burden associated with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.  The cost associated with recordkeeping and the one-time
reporting requirements is estimated to be $974 per facility.

C.	Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

	Similar to the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, all of the
affected sources in the secondary nonferrous metal processing category
have installed control equipment on their furnace melting operations.
Affected sources are well-controlled, and our GACT determination
reflects such controls.  We estimate that the only impact associated
with this final rule is the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The cost associated with recordkeeping and the one-time reporting
requirements is estimated to be $390 per facility.

VII.  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 the
Office of Management and Budget (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 these NESHAP for Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources, Glass Manufacturing Area Sources,
and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources have been
submitted for approval to 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 recordkeeping and reporting requirements in these final rules are
based on the information collection requirements in the part 63 General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).  These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7414).  All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the
information collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality
is made is safeguarded according to EPA’s implementing regulations at
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

	The NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area sources requires
applicable one-time notifications required by the General Provisions.
Plant owners or operators are required to include compliance
certifications for the management practices in their Notifications of
Compliance Status.  The affected sources are expected to already have
the required control and monitoring equipment in place and already
conduct the required monitoring and recordkeeping activities.

	The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first three years of this ICR is estimated to total 196 labor hours per
year at a cost of approximately $16,600 for 17 existing clay ceramics
manufacturing area sources (51 existing sources averaged over three
years).  No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are
associated with the information collection requirements.  No costs or
burden hours are estimated for new clay ceramics manufacturing area
sources because no new area sources are projected for the next three
years.

	The NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing also requires applicable one-time
notifications required by the General Provisions, monitoring of control
device parameters, and recordkeeping.  The annual burden for this
collection of information averaged over the first three years of this
ICR is estimated to total 190 labor hours per year at a cost of $16,130
for the 21 glass manufacturing area source facilities that will be
subject to this final rule.  This burden estimate includes time for
acquisition, installation, and use of monitoring technology and systems,
one-time notifications, and recordkeeping.  Total capital/startup costs
associated with the monitoring requirements (e.g., costs for hiring
performance test contractors and purchase of monitoring and file storage
equipment) over the three-year period of the ICR are estimated at
$15,990, with operation and maintenance costs of $9,850/yr.  No costs or
burden estimates are estimated for new sources because no new sources
are project for the next three years.

	The NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area sources
requires one-time notifications required by the General Provisions.
Plant owners or operators are required to conduct performance tests and
include compliance certifications for the percent PM reduction achieved
by the required control device in their Notifications of Compliance
Status.  The affected sources are expected to already have the required
control and monitoring equipment in place and already conduct the
required monitoring and recordkeeping activities.

	The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first three years of this ICR is estimated to total 15 labor hours per
year at a cost of approximately $1,300 for three existing secondary
nonferrous metals processing area sources (10 existing sources averaged
over three years).  No capital/startup costs or operation and
maintenance costs are associated with the information collection
requirements.  No costs or burden hours are estimated for new secondary
nonferrous metals processing area sources because no new area sources
are projected for the next three years.

	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 part 63 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 these
final rules.

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 the area source NESHAP on
small entities, a small entity is defined as:  (1) a small business
whose parent company meets the Small Business Administration size
standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 to
750 employees for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, less than 750 to 1,000
employees for Glass Manufacturing, and less than 750 employees for
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing, depending on the size definition
for the affected NAICS code); (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 these final rules on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Based on our
estimates, EPA does not expect any new clay ceramic or secondary
nonferrous metal processing sources to be constructed in the foreseeable
future and so, therefore, did not estimate the impacts for new clay
ceramics manufacturing or secondary nonferrous metal processing sources.
 There would be no significant impacts on new or existing clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities or secondary nonferrous metals processing
facilities because these final rules do not create any new requirements
or burdens other than minimal notification requirements.  The minimal
notification requirements consist of reading this final rule and
providing two initial notifications to EPA:  one notifying EPA that the
facility is subject to this final rule and one notifying EPA that the
facility is in compliance with this final rule.  These notifications may
be submitted together.  We estimate the cost of these one-time
notification requirements to be $974 for each clay ceramics
manufacturing facility and $390 for each secondary nonferrous metals
processing facility.  These costs were estimated based on the costs of
technical, management, and clerical support salaries.  We also estimate
that 34 clay ceramics facilities and 6 secondary nonferrous metals
processing facilities are owned and operated by small businesses.  These
notification costs would be less than 0.25 percent for any of these
small businesses.

	Twenty-one glass manufacturing facilities are estimated to require
additional costs because of this final rule.  Only one of these
facilities is a small business.

	Although these final rules will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities.  These final
rules are designed to harmonize with existing State and local
requirements.

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
one 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 these final rules do 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 one year.  Thus, these final rules are not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  EPA has
determined that these final rules contain no regulatory requirement that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.  These final
rules contain no requirements that apply to such governments, impose no
obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on
them.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to assure “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.”

	These final rules do not have federalism implications.  They 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.  These final rules impose
requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not
State and local governments.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to these final rules.

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

	Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to assure “meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.”  These final rules do not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  They 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.  These final rules impose
requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not
tribal governments.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these
final rules.  G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks

	Executive Order 13045:  “Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (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 EPA.

	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 Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. These final rules are not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

	The glass manufacturing 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.  Existing energy requirements for this industry will not be
significantly impacted by the additional pollution controls or other
equipment that may be required by this final rule.  Further, we have
concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any significant
adverse energy effects.

	The clay ceramics manufacturing and the secondary nonferrous metals
processing final rules are not “significant energy actions” as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because
they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.  The energy requirements for these
industries will remain at existing levels.  No additional pollution
controls or other equipment that would consume energy are required by
these final rules.  Further, we have concluded that these final rules
are not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 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.

	These rules involve technical standards.  EPA cites the following
standards:  EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 17,
22, and 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

	Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods.  No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A,
2F, 2G, 22, and 29.  The search and review results are in the dockets
for these final rules.

	The search identified one voluntary consensus standard as acceptable
alternatives to an EPA Method.  The standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981,
“Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is cited in this 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
voluntary consensus standards.  EPA determined that these 12 standards
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to
emission standards in these final rules were impractical alternatives to
EPA test methods for the purposes of the rules.  Therefore, EPA does not
intend to adopt these standards for these purposes.  The reasons for the
determinations for the 12 methods are discussed in the dockets to these
final rules.

	Under §63.7(f) and §63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General Provisions, 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.

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