[Federal Register: September 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 182)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53837-53870]
[DOCID:fr20se07-30]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424; EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360; EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0940; FRL-
8469-9]
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: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous
Metals Processing area source categories. The proposed emissions
standards for new and existing sources are based on EPA's proposed
determination as to what constitutes the generally available control
technology or management practices for each area source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2007 unless a
public hearing is requested by October 1, 2007. If a hearing is
requested on the proposed rules, written comments must be received by
November 5, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must be received by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on or before October 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0424 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0360 (for Glass Manufacturing), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0940 (for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing) by one of the
following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass
Manufacturing, and Secondary. Nonferrous Metals Processing,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0424 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0360 (for Glass Manufacturing), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0940 (for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing). EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket

Center, Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, 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. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed 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: (919) 541-
5435; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For questions about the proposed 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:
(919) 541-3207, 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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?
    B. What criteria did EPA use in developing the proposed NESHAP?
III. Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
    A. What area source category is affected by the proposed rule?
    B. What are the production processes and emissions points at
facilities that manufacture clay ceramics?
    C. How did EPA subcategorize spray glaze operations?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?
IV. Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing
    A. What area source category is affected by the proposed rule?
    B. What are the production processes and emissions points at
facilities that manufacture glass?
    C. How was GACT determined?

    D. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?
V. Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Processing
    A. What area source category is affected by the proposed rule?
    B. What are the production processes and emissions points at
facilities that process secondary nonferrous metals?
    C. How was GACT determined?
    D. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?
VI. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title
V Permitting Requirements
    A. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
    B. Secondary Nonferrous Metal Processing
VII. What are the impacts of the proposed standards for area
sources?
    VIII. 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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the
proposed standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      NAICS      Examples of regulated
             Category                code \1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
    Clay Ceramics Manufacturing...     327122  Area source facilities
                                       327111   that manufacture ceramic
                                       327112   wall and floor tile,
                                                vitreous plumbing
                                                fixtures, vitreous china
                                                tableware and
                                                kitchenware, and/or
                                                pottery.
    Glass Manufacturing...........     327211  Area source facilities
                                       327212   that manufacture flat
                                       327213   glass, glass containers,
                                                and other pressed and
                                                blown glass and
                                                glassware.
    Secondary Nonferrous Metals        331492  Area source brass and
     Processing.                       331423   bronze ingot making,
                                                secondary magnesium
                                                processing, or secondary
                                                zinc processing plant
                                                that melts 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 would be 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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), or
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360 (for Glass Manufacturing), or Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0940 (for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing).
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

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

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

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning the proposed rules by October 1, 2007, we will hold a public
hearing on October 5, 2007. If you are interested in attending the
public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at<PHONE_NUMBER> to verify
that a hearing will be held.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?

    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to
identify at least 30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) which, as the
result of emissions from area sources,\1\ 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.\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of HAP emissions that
is not a major source. A major source is a stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of
any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, the area source category list has undergone
several amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, the order requires that, by December 15, 2007,
EPA complete standards for 10 area source categories. As part of our
effort to meet the December 15, 2007 deadline, we are proposing in this
action the NESHAP for the following three listed area source
categories: (1) Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; (2) Glass Manufacturing;
and (3) Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing. The standards for the
other categories are being proposed in separate actions.
    We added Glass Manufacturing and Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Processing to the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy area source
category list on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43112). The Glass Manufacturing
area source category is comprised of three distinct industry sectors:
(1) Flat Glass Manufacturing; (2) Container Glass Manufacturing; and
(3) Pressed and Blown Glass Manufacturing. On November 22, 2002, we
added Clay Products Manufacturing to the area source category list (67
FR 70428). The Clay Products Manufacturing area source category was
later split into the two categories of Brick and Structural Clay
Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing to better
match the categories already scheduled to be regulated by major source
NESHAP. The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source category is being
addressed in this proposed rule, while the BSCP Manufacturing area
source category will be addressed in a future action. (For more
information on the area source categories, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/area/arearules.html.
)

    The inclusion of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass
Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source
categories on the section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based
on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that
listing. Specifically, the Clay Products Manufacturing area source
category was listed based on emissions of compounds of chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel that represent part of the 90 percent of those
urban HAP emissions in the 1990 inventory and are hereafter referred to
as ``clay ceramics metal HAP.'' The Glass Manufacturing area source
category was listed based on emissions of compounds of arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel that represent part of
the 90 percent of those urban HAP emissions in the 1990 inventory and
are hereafter referred to as ``glass manufacturing metal HAP.'' The
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category was listed
based on emissions of compounds of arsenic, chromium, lead, manganese,
and nickel that represent part of the 90 percent of those urban HAP
emissions in the 1990 inventory and are hereafter referred to as
``secondary nonferrous metal HAP.''

B. What criteria did EPA use in developing the proposed NESHAP?

    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. Pursuant to
section 112(d)(5), we have decided not to issue MACT standards and
concluded that GACT is appropriate for these three source categories.
    Additional information on the definition of GACT is found in the
Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228,
December 20, 1989), which indicates GACT means:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, in addition to considering
technical capabilities of the facilities and the availability of
control measures, we may consider costs and economic impacts in
determining GACT, which is particularly important when developing
regulations for source categories that may have few establishments and
many small businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances,
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered generally available for the area
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and
economic impacts of available control technologies and management
practices on that category.

III. Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

A. What area source category is affected by the proposed rule?

    The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source category includes those
facilities that process greater than 45 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (50
tons per year (tpy)) wet clay to manufacture pressed floor tile,
pressed wall tile, and other pressed tile; sanitaryware (toilets and
sinks); dinnerware; or pottery. Clay ceramics are primarily composed of
clay and shale, and may include many different additives, including
silica, talc, and various high purity powders produced by chemical
synthesis.
    To estimate the number of facilities in the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing area source category, we gathered detailed information
from the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing major sources. Also, we
compiled information from other sources, including site visits,
Internet searches, and industry submittals. Based on this information
and taking into account recent facility shutdowns, we have identified
51 area source facilities with spray glaze operations or kilns that
fire glazed ceramic ware that would be subject to the final clay
ceramics manufacturing area source NESHAP.

    With this action, we are also clarifying that artisan potters,
small ceramics studios, noncommercial entities, and schools and
universities with ceramic arts programs, which typically have annual
production rates of 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) or less, are not a part of the
source category listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and
are, therefore, not covered by this area source standard. Urban HAP
emissions from these facilities were not included in the 1990 baseline
emissions inventory that was used as the basis for the area source
category listing. Specifically, in reviewing the inventory on which we
based the listing of this source category, we determined that the
sources that were the basis of the listing decision were those with an
annual production rate in excess of 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy).

B. What are the production processes and emissions points at facilities
that manufacture clay ceramics?

    Clay ceramics manufacturing generally includes raw material
processing and handling and forming of the clay product shapes,
followed by drying, glazing, and firing. Some tile products and most
dinnerware/pottery are fired in a kiln prior to some type of glazing
operation. More than 95 percent of all clay ceramic products are coated
with a glaze and then fired in a kiln.
    Spray glaze operations and kilns that fire glazed ceramic ware
account for most of the particulate matter (PM) and urban metal HAP
emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities (about 80 to 90
percent from spray glaze operations and 10 to 20 percent from kilns).
Overspray accounts for most of the PM and clay ceramics metal HAP
emitted during spray glaze operations. Emissions from kilns firing
glazed ceramic ware consist primarily of volatilized materials from the
glaze. The type and volume of HAP emissions vary according to the glaze
materials. Emissions of PM from spray glaze operations and kilns firing
glazed ceramic ware are estimated at about 407 Mg/yr (449 tpy)
nationwide, with about 7.1 Mg/yr (7.9 tpy) of clay ceramics metal HAP
(mostly lead and chromium, with smaller quantities of nickel and
manganese). Lead emissions are estimated at about 4.1 Mg/yr (4.5 tpy),
and most of those emissions come from the two dinnerware facilities
still using leaded glazes. Since 1990, most clay ceramics facilities
have ceased using leaded glazes because of potential environmental and
worker exposure issues.
    Spray glazing operations at area source facilities are currently
controlled in terms of clay ceramics metal HAP emissions as a result of
state and local air pollution standards, permit requirements, and/or
management practices already implemented by the industry to reduce clay
ceramics metal HAP from spray glaze operations. Capture systems for
spray glaze operations typically include spray booths; partial or total
enclosures; and process area ventilation systems. Several different
types of air pollution control devices (APCD) are used to control
overspray emissions from glaze spray booths, including wet scrubbers,
fabric filters, water curtains, and water-wash systems.
    Most, if not all, facilities practice waste minimization in their
glazing operations to minimize glaze cost and cleanup downtime.
Examples of waste minimization practices include, but are not limited
to, minimizing glaze overspray emissions using high-volume, low
pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or similar spray equipment; minimizing
HAP emissions during cleanup of spray glazing equipment; operating and
maintaining spray glazing equipment according to manufacturer's
instructions; and minimizing spills through careful handling of HAP-
containing glaze materials. HVLP spray equipment operates at low
atomizing air pressure--0.69 to 69 kilopascals (0.1 to 10 pounds per
square inch) at the air nozzle and use 0.42 to 0.85 cubic meters per
minute (15 to 30 cubic feet per minute) of air.
    No APCD are used by area sources in the clay ceramics manufacturing
industry to control emissions from kilns. However, available operating
permit information shows that most, if not all, clay ceramics kilns
firing glazed ceramic ware are fired with natural gas or some other
clean-burning, low-HAP fuel (e.g., propane). Some clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities use electric-powered kilns. Furthermore, clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities maintain the peak firing temperatures
of their kilns firing glazed ceramic ware well below the volatilization
temperatures of the clay ceramics metal HAP in their spray glazes.
1. Selection of Affected Source
    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. In
selecting the affected source for regulation, we identified the clay
ceramics metal HAP-emitting operations, the clay ceramics metal HAP
emitted, and the quantity of clay ceramics metal HAP emissions from the
individual or groups of emissions points. We concluded that designating
the group of atomized spray glaze operations and kilns firing glazed
ceramic ware within the clay ceramics manufacturing operation as the
affected source was the most appropriate approach and consistent with
the basis for the original listing. This proposed rule includes
requirements for the control of emissions from all atomized spray glaze
operations and all curing operations involving kilns firing glazed
ceramic ware.
2. Selection of Pollutants
    For this proposed rule, we decided that it was not practical to
establish individual standards for each specific type of clay ceramics
metal HAP that could be present in the various processes. A sufficient
correlation exists between PM and these clay ceramics metal HAP to rely
on PM as a surrogate for both the presence of the HAP and for their
control.\3\ When released, each of the clay ceramics metal HAP
compounds behaves as PM. The control technologies used for the control
of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of performance on the
individual clay ceramics metal HAP emissions. Therefore, standards
requiring good control of PM also achieve good control of clay ceramics
metal HAP emissions. Furthermore, establishing separate standards for
each individual metal HAP would impose costly and significantly more
complex compliance and monitoring requirements and achieve little, if
any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the
surrogate pollutant approach based on total PM. Based on these
considerations, we decided to establish standards for Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing based on control of total PM as a surrogate pollutant for
the individual clay ceramics metal HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Lime Association v. EPA. 233 F.3d 625, 639-640
(D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir.
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How did EPA subcategorize spray glaze operations?

    As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions
that would warrant subcategorization. Under section 112(d)(1) of the
CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within a
source category or subcategory in establishing such standards* * *''.
In our review of the available data, we observed significant
differences between spray glaze operations based on the level of wet
glaze usage and clay ceramics metal HAP emissions. For these reasons,
we

are proposing two subcategories for spray glaze operations based on
annual wet glaze usage: those facilities with annual wet glaze usage of
more than 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) and facilities with annual wet glaze
usage of 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) or less. These subcategories differentiate
between general sizes of glazing operations at clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities, but do not differentiate clay product types
or other processes.
    Those facilities with wet glaze usage above the threshold level
would be subject to a different set of management practices than those
facilities at or below the threshold level, which are more likely to be
small businesses and comprise a much smaller fraction of total
production, glaze usage, and clay ceramics metal HAP emissions. Our
analysis indicates that approximately 88 percent of wet glaze usage and
75 percent of clay ceramics metal HAP emissions are associated with 11
clay ceramic manufacturing area source facilities in the subcategory
with wet glaze usage levels greater than 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) and the
other 12 percent of wet glaze usage and 25 percent of clay ceramics
metal HAP emissions come from 40 facilities in the subcategory with wet
glaze usage at or below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy). To account for those
facilities that use non-HAP glazes in some or all of their processes,
we have included a provision allowing sources to exclude glazes that
contain less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP in
determining their total wet glaze usage relative to the 227 Mg/yr (250
tpy) subcategorization threshold.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards
representing GACT for the clay ceramics metal HAP. As noted in section
II of this preamble, the statute allows the Agency to establish
standards for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c) based on
GACT. The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing
standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source
category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant
to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    Moreover, most of the facilities in this source category have good
operational controls in-place and use small quantities of clay ceramics
metal HAP in their glazes. We evaluated the control technologies and
management practices that reduce HAP emissions that are generally
available for the clay ceramics manufacturing area source category. We
also considered costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. We
believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially
important for the well-controlled clay ceramics manufacturing area
sources because, given current well-controlled levels, requiring
additional controls would result in only marginal reductions in
emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in
control for this area source category. We explain below in detail our
proposed GACT determinations.
1. GACT for Kilns
    As noted previously, we are not aware of any APCD used by clay
ceramics manufacturing area source facilities to control emissions from
kilns, but most, if not all, clay ceramics kilns firing glazed ceramic
ware are fired with natural gas or some other clean-burning, low-HAP
fuel (e.g., propane). Based on the available information for all types
and sizes of kilns in this industry, we are not aware of any add-on
control techniques being used to reduce PM emissions from kilns.
Consequently, we determined GACT for kilns to be using natural gas, or
an equivalent fuel, for all firing of glazed ceramic ware. For
simplicity, we are proposing GACT for all kilns that fire glazed
ceramic ware at a given facility and not differentiating between the
subcategories identified in the following sections of this preamble
involving glazing operations. There are no differences in control
equipment or control levels associated with kilns firing different
amounts of glazed ceramic ware; therefore, GACT is the same for all
kilns.
    As noted previously, clay ceramics manufacturing facilities also
maintain the peak firing temperatures of their kilns firing glazed
ceramic ware well below the volatilization temperatures of the clay
ceramics metal HAP in their spray glazes. For those clay ceramics metal
HAP that would be present in the kiln exhaust, the lowest
volatilization temperature is approximately 1740[deg]C (3160[deg]F) for
lead. Based on available information, the highest peak firing
temperature used in the clay ceramics manufacturing industry is
approximately 1370[deg]C (2500[deg]F). In order to keep peak firing
temperatures well below the volatilization temperatures for the
relevant clay ceramics metal HAP, we are conservatively proposing GACT
as requiring that facilities maintain the peak firing temperatures of
their kilns firing glazed ceramic ware below 1540[deg]C (2800[deg]F).
2. GACT for Glaze Spray Booths at Facilities with Wet Glaze Usage Above
227 Mg/yr (250 tpy)
    All of the known area source facilities above the threshold of 227
Mg/yr (250 tpy) with atomized spray glaze operations are controlled for
PM emissions (e.g., water-wash system or wet scrubber). Many of the
glaze spray systems and associated control equipment are custom-
designed and -built, depending on product type/size and glaze
application spray rates. We lack empirical data for a majority of the
facilities in this subcategory for performance testing or actual
emission rates associated with spray glaze booths.
    In evaluating GACT options, we found that major source clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities also utilize similar PM controls on
their spray glazing operations. Based on the existing operating permit
requirements for clay ceramics facilities, we found a variety of
formats and units, e.g., percent opacity, allowable PM or
PM10 emission rates (pounds per hour (lbs/hr) or tpy),
percent removal efficiency, and outlet concentrations (grains per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). While these requirements cover a wide
range of spray glazing processes and products, we believe that they
achieve a similar level of control and are generally available. (See
technical memorandum in the docket for more details on spray booth
permit requirements and estimated clay ceramics metal HAP emissions).
Therefore, we determined GACT for the subcategory for glaze spray
booths at facilities with wet glaze usage above 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) to
be an equipment requirement: wet control systems for PM emissions. Per
the legislative history, a management practice in the form of an
equipment requirement is an appropriate standard under section
112(d)(5).
3. GACT for Glaze Spray Booths at Facilities with Wet Glaze Usage At or
Below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy)
    Area source facilities at or below the threshold of 227 Mg/yr (250
tpy) typically practice waste minimization in their glazing operations
to minimize glaze cost and cleanup downtime. We evaluated the potential
costs and emission reductions for APCD for facilities with lower glaze
usage and found the cost effectiveness to be unreasonable, e.g.,
average cost of approximately $71,000/Mg ($64,000/ton) of PM and $10
million/Mg ($9 million/ton) of metal HAP. Therefore, for the
subcategory for glaze spray booths at facilities with wet glaze usage
at or below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy), we

determined GACT for spray glaze operations to be waste minimization
practices.

E. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The proposed standards would apply to any new or existing affected
source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is an area source
and uses more than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of clay. The affected source
includes 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 would have to
comply with the standards by the date of promulgation of the final
rule. The owner or operator of a new affected source would be required
to comply with the standards by the date of promulgation of the final
rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
2. Proposed Standards
    For each kiln firing glazed ceramic ware, the proposed standards
would require the facility owner or operator to maintain the kiln peak
temperature below 1540[deg]C (2800[deg]F) and either use natural gas,
or an equivalent clean-burning fuel, as the kiln fuel. The facility
owner or operator would also have 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 proposing 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 proposed standards would require the facility owner or
operator to have an 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 proposed
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 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 proposed standards would require the facility owner or
operator to employ waste minimization practices in their glazing
operations. As an alternative to this proposed requirement, we are also
providing the option to comply with the equipment standard or
management practices for facilities with glaze usage greater than 227
Mg/yr (250 tpy) the threshold (i.e., PM controls or the use of glazes
containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP),
which is expected to provide emissions reductions equivalent or greater
than those obtained using waste minimization practices.
3. Proposed Compliance Requirements
    Initial compliance demonstration requirements. The owner or
operator would be required to include compliance certifications for the
proposed 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 proposed standards would 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 [deg]C (2800 [deg]F), the owner or
operator would be required to take corrective action according to the
facility's standard operating procedures.
    Based on available permit information, there are several clay
ceramic manufacturing area source facilities with weekly monitoring
requirements associated with APCD used for PM emissions. For all
sources that operate one or more APCD for their atomized spray glaze
operations, we are proposing daily and weekly visual APCD inspections,
daily EPA Method 22 visible emissions (VE) tests, 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 would be 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 proposing that
affected sources submit Initial Notifications and Notifications of
Compliance Status under this proposed rule because they are consistent
with the part 63 General Provisions and are needed to identify the
affected sources subject to the standards and confirm the compliance
status of the sources. To ensure that facilities have sufficient time
to submit the notifications once the rule was promulgated, we are
proposing that facilities submit the notifications 120 days after the
promulgation date. (The promulgation date is also the compliance date
for this rule.) The submittal date for the notifications is based on
the requirement for submitting Initial Notifications specified in the
part 63 General Provisions.
    We are soliciting information on any control technologies or
management practices used to limit emissions of PM or metal HAP from
clay ceramics manufacturing area sources and any cost information
associated with such control approaches. We also request comment on
GACT and the proposed standards.

IV. Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing

A. What area source category is affected by the proposed rule?

    The glass manufacturing area source category consists of plants
that operate one or more glass melting furnaces that produce at least
45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of glass and are charged with one or more of the
glass manufacturing metal HAP.
    Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing was listed as
an area source category on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43112). The inclusion
of this source category on the area source category list was based on
emissions of the six glass manufacturing metal HAP. These HAP are
emitted from glass melting furnaces.
    The proposed glass manufacturing rule would apply to manufacturers
producing glass by melting a mixture of minerals and other compounds,
then cooling the melt in a manner that prevents it from crystallizing.
The primary constituent of all glass is silica, but most glass contains
several other minerals and substances. Examples include soda ash,
potash, limestone, feldspar, potassium nitrate, boric acid, iron oxide,
and sodium nitrate. Metal oxides can be included in the glass
manufacturing formulation to produce colored or tinted glass. Some
examples include iron oxide, chromium oxide,

cobalt oxide, nickel, and selenium. Other compounds, such as lead oxide
and arsenic compounds, can be added to enhance or modify the final
product. Recycled glass, also known as cullet, is a primary ingredient
of many glass formulations.
    Glass manufacturing plants can be broadly classified by product
type as one of the following: Flat glass, container glass, or pressed
and blown glass. Flat glass includes plate glass used for building
windows and automobile windshields. Container glass includes soda,
beer, and wine bottles, jars, and other glass containers. Pressed and
blown glass includes a wide variety of products such as light bulbs,
glass tubing, optical glass, glass cooking ware, and industrial
glassware.
    As noted previously, the glass manufacturing area source category
was listed based on emissions of the six glass manufacturing metal HAP.
The Section 112(k) inventory included emissions of these metal HAP from
glass manufacturing plants that use compounds of one or more of the
metal HAP as raw materials that are added to the glass manufacturing
formulation to impart specific characteristics to the final glass
product. We estimate that there currently are 21 such plants in
operation in the U.S., and these 21 plants comprise the glass
manufacturing area source category.

B. What are the production processes and emission points at facilities
that manufacture glass?

    Regardless of the type of glass, the process of manufacturing glass
entails batch measuring and mixing raw materials in specified
proportions, charging the raw material batch mix into a furnace, where
it is melted to form molten glass, forming the molten glass into the
desired shapes, and finishing and packaging the final product.
    Compounds of the glass manufacturing metal HAP are incorporated
into glass manufacturing batch formulations to either color, tint, or
impart certain characteristics, such as clarity and brilliance, to the
final glass product. Lead oxide is used as a clarifier, former,
stabilizer, and for radiation shielding in glass. Arsenic is used as a
fining agent to facilitate the removal of bubbles from molten glass.
The other four glass manufacturing metal HAP compounds are used
primarily to color or tint the glass.
    Other metal HAP may also be emitted from glass manufacturing
furnaces. These include antimony, selenium, and cobalt. Although the
source category was not listed for these other metal HAP, the air
pollution controls used to obtain reductions of the glass manufacturing
metal HAP also reduce emissions of other metal HAP where they are used
in the same process.
1. Selection of Source Category
    Although listed originally as ``Pressed and Blown Glass and
Glassware Manufacturing,'' the Glass Manufacturing area source category
listing was based upon data from all of the three primary sectors of
the glass manufacturing industry: Flat glass, container glass, and
pressed and blown glass. We are clarifying that the Glass Manufacturing
area source category includes any glass manufacturing facility that
operates one or more furnaces which produce at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy)
of glass per furnace and use the glass manufacturing metal HAP
compounds as raw materials, regardless of the type of glass product
manufactured. This clarification does not change the universe of
sources that were the basis of the original listing notice.
2. Selection of Affected Sources
    The affected source includes glass manufacturing furnaces that meet
two criteria: The furnaces are charged with one or more of the glass
manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials, and the furnaces have annual
production rates of at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy). We selected furnaces as
the affected source because glass melting furnaces emit the HAP for
which this source category was listed pursuant to sections 112(c)(3)
and (k)(3)(B) (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and
nickel).

C. How was GACT determined?

    While most of the facilities that would be subject to the proposed
rule have good operational controls in place to control emissions of
glass manufacturing metal HAP, a few facilities would have to install
emission controls or change their glass formulation to meet the
emission limits in the proposed rule. We considered costs and economic
impacts in determining GACT and found that the cost effectiveness of
reducing PM-10 using add-on control is excellent for PM as well as for
reducing glass manufacturing metal HAP. While we believe the
consideration of costs and economic impacts is important for area
sources, we found that the emission reductions achieved by the proposed
rule were compelling. Our analyses show that the proposed rule would
result in substantial reductions in emissions at reasonable costs for
this area source category, achieving 28 tons per year reductions in
glass manufacturing metal HAP and 415 tons per year reductions in PM.
We explain below in detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. Background
    Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA allows us to develop area source
standards based on GACT. In identifying GACT for the affected sources
in the Glass Manufacturing area source category, we compiled data on
existing glass manufacturing plants through a series of site visits, a
Section 114 information collection request (ICR), operating permits and
permit applications, emission inventory reports, emission test reports,
published reports on the industry, and databases such as the Toxic
Release Inventory and National Emission Inventory (NEI) databases.
Detailed data on approximately 80 glass manufacturing plants were
compiled in a database, which we then used for subsequent analyses to
determine GACT.
    The data compiled on existing glass manufacturing facilities
included permit limits for PM emissions for approximately 150 furnaces.
When converted to a common format (e.g., pounds per ton (lbs/ton)) the
data show a wide range in PM emission limits. To meet the most
stringent PM emission limits specified in title V permits, plants
typically use electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or fabric filters.
    The data also show that many existing glass furnaces are subject to
40 CFR 60, subpart CC, Standards of Performance for Glass Manufacturing
Plants (Glass NSPS). The Glass NSPS establishes emission limits for PM
and applies to all glass manufacturing plants constructed or modified
since 1980 that produce or have the design capacity to produce at least
4,550 kilograms (kg) (about 5 tons) of glass in one day. Depending on
the glass recipe, fuel, and process used, the NSPS limits range from
0.2 to 2.0 lbs of PM/ton of glass produced. To comply with the NSPS,
plants typically use ESP, fabric filters, or process modifications.
Based on the data compiled, approximately 40 percent of container glass
furnaces, 50 percent of flat glass furnaces, and 25 percent of pressed
and blown glass furnaces are subject to the NSPS.
2. Selection of PM as a Surrogate for Glass Manufacturing Metal HAP
    For glass manufacturing furnaces that are charged with any of the
glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials, PM emissions contain
those glass manufacturing metal HAP, and emissions control equipment
that is

designed and operated to control PM emissions also control emissions of
the glass manufacturing metal HAP. Furthermore, many glass
manufacturing plants have title V operating permits that require PM
emissions controls and establish emissions limits for PM. For these
reasons, we are proposing to establish standards using PM as a
surrogate for the glass manufacturing metal HAP. Controlling PM
emissions will control emissions of the glass manufacturing metal HAP
since the metals are contained within the PM--they are in the
particulate form as opposed to the gaseous form. Particulate matter
controls used at existing glass manufacturing plants are the same
controls available to control particulate metal HAP such as the six
glass manufacturing metal HAP. These controls capture particulate metal
HAP non-preferentially along with other PM, thus making PM a reasonable
surrogate for the metal HAP. We have used this approach in several
other NESHAP in which PM was determined to be a surrogate for the metal
HAP in the PM.
3. Selection of Emission Factor Format
    The data compiled on existing glass manufacturing facilities
included permit limits for PM emissions for approximately 150 furnaces.
The permit limits are expressed in a variety of formats (units), such
as emission factors or production-based mass emission rates (e.g., lbs
emitted per ton of glass produced), emission concentrations (e.g., gr/
dscf of exhaust), and emission rates (e.g., lbs/hr). Due to the wide
range in furnace sizes, we are proposing to use the emission factor
format because this format normalizes emissions as a function of
production rate. Furthermore, of the 150 permit limits reviewed, the
permits for 55 furnaces specified emission limits in the format of an
emission factor. In addition, the Glass NSPS specifies emission limits
as emission factors.
4. Selection of GACT for Glass Melting Furnaces
    In evaluating GACT for the glass manufacturing area source
category, we reviewed the available data for glass melting furnaces
that have installed emission controls to reduce emissions of PM and
metal HAP. Electrostatic precipitators are by far the most commonly
used device for controlling emissions of PM or metal HAP from glass
furnaces. Among the furnaces that produce glass using metal HAP
compounds as raw materials, approximately 35 percent are controlled
with ESPs. This includes all of the controlled furnaces in the flat
glass and container glass sectors that are charged with metal HAP. For
furnaces in the pressed and blown glass sector that produce glass using
metal HAP, approximately 38 percent are controlled with ESPs and 24
percent are controlled with fabric filters.
    The available test data on controlled emissions of PM and/or metal
HAP from furnaces were reviewed. The resulting data set includes the
results from 19 tests of PM emissions on ESP-controlled furnaces. The
emission factors developed from the data ranged from 0.032 to 0.25 lb
PM/ton of glass produced, and the average emission factor was
determined to be 0.11 lb PM/ton of glass produced. In order to
establish an emission limit representing the variation in normal
process operation and emissions from a well-controlled glass furnace,
we utilized a statistical approach by calculating the 99th percentile
of the data set. This resulted in a PM emission limit of 0.2 lb/ton.
    As an alternative to expressing the identified limit in terms of
PM, we evaluated expressing the limit in terms of an equivalent
emission limit for metal HAP. In this regard, we reviewed the available
data on controlled furnaces that were charged with the glass
manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials. The resulting data set
included the results from 15 emission tests. The emission factors
developed from the data ranged from 0.0001 to 0.023 lb metal HAP/ton
and averaged 0.008 lb metal HAP/ton. Applying the same methodology that
we used to determine the PM emission limit for GACT, we developed GACT
in terms of an equivalent metal HAP emission limit to be 0.02 lb metal
HAP/ton of glass produced. We consider the PM emission factor of 0.2
lb/ton of glass produced and the glass manufacturing metal HAP emission
factor of 0.02 lb/ton of glass produced to be equivalent measures of
GACT for well-controlled glass manufacturing furnaces.
    The estimated cost effectiveness for requiring furnaces charged
with glass manufacturing metal HAP to meet the 0.2 lb/ton PM emission
limit ranges from approximately $2,000 to $6,300 per ton of PM removed.
In terms of metal HAP removed, the cost effectiveness of meeting the
0.2 lb/ton PM emission limit depends largely on the amount of metal HAP
included in the batch formulation. For example, for furnaces that
produce glass containing 30 percent lead, the cost effectiveness would
be approximately $6,500 per ton of metal HAP removed. However, some
facilities produce glass using metal HAP in very small amounts; some
plants also use a glass manufacturing formulation that retains most of
the metal HAP in the glass product. In both cases, the cost
effectiveness for installing controls to meet the proposed 0.2 lb/ton
PM emission limit could exceed several million dollars per ton of metal
HAP removed. In such cases, the equivalent metal HAP emission limit of
0.02 lb/ton would allow plants to comply with the proposed rule by
using glass formulations with very low metal HAP emissions.
    Our GACT determinations reflect the levels of emissions reductions
that are being achieved by well-controlled sources, and we have
concluded that the proposed rule would achieve significant reductions
of metal HAP and PM when applied to this source category. We considered
the costs and economic impacts of the proposed emission limits. We also
considered whether an emission limit more stringent than the 0.2 lb PM/
ton or 0.02 lb metal HAP/ton could be achieved by facilities using the
technologies described above. We are proposing that requiring more
stringent emission limits would not result in significantly greater
emission reductions than what we project the proposed rule would
achieve. Requiring additional controls would result in only marginal
reductions of emissions at very high costs for modest incremental
improvement in control for this area source category.

D. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The proposed NESHAP would apply to any glass manufacturing plant
that is an area source of HAP emissions and operates one or more
furnaces which produce at least 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.
    Under this proposed rule, the compliance date for existing sources
would be 2 years following promulgation of the final rule. However,
owners or operators of affected sources could request an extension of
an additional one year to comply with the proposed rule, as allowed
under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA and under Sec.  63.6(i)(4)(A), if
the additional time is needed to install emission controls. The request
for an extension of the compliance date would have to be submitted to
the permitting agency no later than 12 months prior to the compliance
date. In addition, the owner or operator would have to apply for a
revision of the facility's title V permit to

incorporate the conditions of the compliance date extension. The
compliance date for new or reconstructed sources would be the date of
promulgation of the final rule or the startup date for the source,
whichever is later. The compliance date for facilities with no affected
sources at the time of promulgation and which later change processes or
increase production and trigger applicability of the proposed rule,
would be 2 years following the date on which the facility made the
process changes or increased production and thereby became subject to
the proposed NESHAP.
2. Proposed Standards for New, Existing, and Reconstructed Sources
    This proposed rule would require new and existing affected furnace
to comply with a PM emission limit of 0.2 lb/ton of glass produced or
an equivalent metal HAP emission limit of 0.02 lb/ton of glass
produced. We selected these emission limits based on GACT for glass
manufacturing furnaces, as explained in Section IV.C. of this preamble.
3. Initial Testing Requirements
    The proposed rule would require 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 proposed rule using the same test
methods and procedures specified in this proposed rule. The initial
performance test is needed to demonstrate that affected sources meet
the emission limits.
    To demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, the proposed
rule would require testing using Methods 5 or 17. Method 5 is a
standard method for measuring PM and is the test method specified in
the Glass NSPS. Method 17 is a standard alternative method for PM where
in-stack testing is appropriate. To meet the metal HAP emission limit,
plants would be required to test using Method 29, which is the standard
method for measuring any metal HAP.
4. Monitoring Requirements
    Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator of an existing
affected glass furnace that is controlled with an ESP would be required
to 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. This proposed rule would require the owner or operator
of a new or reconstructed affected furnace equipped with an ESP to
install and operate one or more continuous parameter monitoring systems
to continuously measure and record the secondary voltage and electrical
current to each field of the ESP. We selected these parameter
monitoring requirements because secondary voltage and secondary
electrical current are reliable indicators of ESP performance. 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.
    The proposed rule would require owners or operators of an existing
affected glass furnace that is controlled with a fabric filter to
monitor the fabric filter inlet temperature continuously and record the
results at least once every 8 hours. We selected this monitoring
requirement because it is important to ensure that the exhaust gas
temperature does not exceed the maximum allowable temperature for the
filter bags. This proposed rule would require the owner or operator of
a new or reconstructed affected furnace that is equipped with a fabric
filter to install and operate a bag leak detector. Bag leak detectors
provide a reliable and cost-effective indicator of tears and other
damage to fabric filter bags.
    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 would have the option of requesting alternative monitoring, as
allowed under Sec.  63.8(f). The alternative monitoring request would
have to include a description of the monitoring device or monitoring
method that would be used; instrument location; inspection procedures;
quality assurance and quality control measures; the parameters that
would 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, would be required to submit a request for alternative
monitoring, as described in Sec.  63.8(f).
5. Control Device Inspections
    Under this proposed rule, the owner or operator of an affected
furnace would be required to conduct initial and periodic inspections
of the furnace control device. For fabric filters, the proposed rule
would require annual inspections of the ductwork, housing, and fabric
filter interior. For ESP, the proposed rule would require annual
inspections of the ductwork, hopper, and housing, and inspections of
the ESP interior every 2 years.
6. Notification and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Under this proposal, owners and operators of all affected glass
manufacturing plants that operate at least one furnace that produces at
least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of glass using any of the glass manufacturing
metal HAP as raw materials would be required to submit an Initial
Notification, as required under Sec.  63.9(b). Any facility with an
affected source would also have to submit a Notification of Compliance
Status, as specified in Sec.  63.9(h).
    Owners and operators of glass manufacturing facilities would be
required to keep records of all notifications, as well as supporting
documentation for the notifications. In addition, they would be
required to 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.
    We selected the requirement for submitting Initial Notifications
and Notifications of Compliance Status under this proposed rule because
these requirements are specified in the part 63 General Provisions
(subpart A). The specific recordkeeping requirements were selected
because they are consistent with the part 63 General Provisions and are
needed to document compliance with the requirements of this proposed
rule.

V. Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Processing

A. What area source category is affected by the proposed rule?

    Secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities are facilities
that use furnaces to melt post-consumer nonferrous metal scrap to make
products including bars, ingots, blocks, and metal powders. The
Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category consists of
brass and bronze ingot makers, secondary magnesium processors, and
secondary zinc processors. This area source category was listed
pursuant to the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002)
due to the emissions of the urban HAP arsenic, chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel, all of which are metal HAP.

    In May 2006, we sent an ICR to 98 secondary nonferrous metal
processing facilities identified by TRI, NEI and Internet searches, as
well as contact with trade associations. Of the 98 facilities receiving
the ICR, the ICR was determined to be applicable to 10 facilities.
Therefore there are 10 facilities in this area source category. These
facilities include brass and bronze ingot makers, secondary magnesium
processors, and secondary zinc processors. Reasons for why the ICR was
not applicable to many facilities that received the initial ICR mailing
included: (1) The facilities were no longer operating, (2) the
facilities were included in another secondary nonferrous category such
as secondary lead, secondary aluminum, or secondary copper, (3) the
facilities reported no emissions of the urban HAP arsenic, chromium,
lead, manganese, or nickel, (4) the facilities processed ferrous
material, or (5) the facilities performed no urban HAP-emitting
processing operations (e.g., scrap wholesalers).

B. What are the production processes and emissions points at facilities
that process secondary nonferrous metals?

    Basic production processes at secondary nonferrous metals
processing facilities are: (1) Material handling and pretreatment,
which may include crushing and screening operations, (2) metal charging
and melting, (3) metal pouring and cooling, (4) removal of cooled metal
from molds, and (5) finishing.
    Brass and bronze ingot makers include facilities where secondary
copper scrap (e.g., number 1 copper scrap) is used to supplement copper
alloy scrap that is remelted and poured into ingots. Furnaces used in
secondary brass and bronze ingot making include natural gas-fired
rotary kilns and electric induction furnaces.
    Furnaces used in brass and bronze ingot making emit PM containing
metals. The PM emissions are totally dependent upon the incoming scrap
metal which may contain the following urban HAP: lead and smaller
amounts of cadmium, nickel, and manganese. In some brass and bronze
ingot making processes, exhaust gases are drawn through a quench
chamber to cool the gases prior to entering the baghouses to prevent
the gases from damaging or destroying the bag filters.
    Furnaces in secondary magnesium processing emit PM which may
contain the urban HAP manganese. Furnaces used in secondary magnesium
processing include natural gas-fired crucibles and electric induction
furnaces. One secondary magnesium processor is currently in operation
in the U.S. and that facility is equipped with a baghouse on the
furnace exhaust.
    Secondary zinc processors also emit PM that may contain lead during
crushing and screening operations and melting operations. Furnaces used
in secondary zinc processing include natural gas-fired kettle,
crucible, and retort furnaces and electric induction furnaces.
    Furnace distillation with oxidation produces zinc oxide dust.
Distillation involves vaporization of zinc at temperatures from 982 to
1249 [deg]C (1800 to 2280 [deg]F). The zinc vapor discharges directly
into an air stream leading to a refractory-lined combustion chamber.
Excess air completes the oxidation and cools the zinc oxide dust which
is then collected in a fabric filter as the final product. Because the
zinc oxide dust is the product, well-performing fabric filters are used
to optimize product recovery.
    According to the information we received, emissions from furnace
operations at the secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities and
secondary zinc crushing and screening operations are all currently
controlled by fabric filters or baghouses, and the collection
efficiency of these fabric filters or baghouses during normal
operations all exceed 99 percent.
1. Selection of Affected Source
    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. The
affected source may be the same collection of equipment and processes
as the source category or it may be a subset of the source category.
For each rule, we must decide which individual pieces of equipment and
processes warrant standards in the context of the CAA section 112
requirements and the industry operating practices.
    We are proposing to designate as the affected source in this
proposed area source NESHAP all secondary nonferrous metal HAP-emitting
operations at brass and ingot making, secondary magnesium processing,
and secondary zinc processing facilities. Specifically, based on data
from ICR responses, we are designating as the affected source all
crushing or screening operations at secondary zinc processing
facilities and furnace melting operations at all secondary nonferrous
metal processing facilities. This proposed rule includes requirements
for the control of emissions from all crushing or screening operations
at secondary zinc processing facilities and furnace melting operations
at all secondary nonferrous metal processing facilities.
2. Selection of Pollutants
    For this proposed rule, we decided that it was impractical to
establish individual standards for each specific secondary nonferrous
metal HAP that could be present in the various processes (e.g.,
separate standards arsenic, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel).
Establishing separate standards for each individual metal HAP would
impose costly and significantly more complex compliance and monitoring
requirements.
    All of the urban HAP emitted by sources in this area source
category are metal HAP. When released, each of these secondary
nonferrous metal HAP compounds behaves as PM. Accordingly, standards
requiring good control of PM (e.g., requiring a baghouse) will also
effectively control the secondary nonferrous metal HAP emissions from
sources in this area source category. Based on these considerations, we
are proposing standards for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing
based on control of total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the
individual secondary nonferrous metal HAP.
    A sufficient correlation exists between PM and these secondary
nonferrous metal HAP to rely on PM as a surrogate for both the presence
of the HAP and for their control. When released, each of the secondary
nonferrous metal HAP compounds behaves as PM. The control technologies
used for the control of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of
performance on the individual secondary nonferrous metal HAP.
    Further, as previously mentioned, the amount of secondary
nonferrous metal HAP emissions from brass and bronze ingot making,
secondary magnesium processing, and secondary zinc processing can vary
depending on the HAP content in the incoming scrap metals. Because of
the inherent variability and unpredictability of the HAP compositions
and amounts in incoming scrap material, it is difficult to establish
individual numerical emissions for each secondary nonferrous metal HAP.

C. How was GACT determined?

    All of the facilities in this source category have good operational
controls in-place and most incoming materials contain small quantities
of secondary nonferrous metal HAP. We evaluated the control
technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that
are generally available for the secondary nonferrous metals

processing area source category. We also considered costs and economic
impacts in determining GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and
economic impacts is especially important for the well-controlled
secondary nonferrous metals processing area sources because, given
current well-controlled levels, requiring an additional level of
control would result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very
high costs for modest incremental improvement in control for this area
source category. We explain below in detail our proposed GACT
determinations.
1. GACT for Existing Sources
    In identifying GACT for existing affected sources in the Secondary
Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category, we considered the
available data on the 10 existing facilities. In their ICR responses,
these 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
concentration of at least 0.050 grams per dry standard cubic meter
(0.022 gr/dscf) where collection efficiency was not reported.
    We are proposing using a baghouse or fabric filter that achieves a
PM control efficiency of at least 99 percent as GACT for existing
sources because we determined that this level of control is generally
available, is cost effective, and is effective for controlling
emissions of PM and secondary nonferrous metal HAP.
2. GACT for New Sources
    In identifying GACT for new affected sources in the Secondary
Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category, we considered the
available data on the 10 existing facilities. The best performing
facilities reported that each baghouse used at their facilities
performed at a PM collection efficiency of at least 99.5 percent.
    We contacted baghouse manufacturers to gather information on design
parameters and performance for new baghouse installations in the
secondary nonferrous metals processing industry. Furthermore, we also
considered the performance of baghouses at similar sources (e.g.,
melting furnaces used in other industries).
    Based on available data on the 10 existing facilities, contact with
baghouse manufacturers, and consideration of baghouse performance at
similar sources, we are proposing using a baghouse or fabric filter
that achieves a PM control efficiency of at least 99.5 percent as GACT
for new affected sources.

D. What are the proposed requirements for area sources?

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The proposed standards would 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 would have to
comply with the standards by the date of promulgation of the final
rule. The owner or operator of a new affected source would be required
to comply with the standards by the date of promulgation of the final
rule, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Proposed Standards
    The proposed standards would 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.
    The proposed standards would require the owner or operator of a new
affected source to route the emissions from the affected source through
a fabric filter or baghouse that achieves a control efficiency of at
least 99.5 percent.
3. Proposed Compliance Requirements
    Performance test requirements. The owner or operator of any
existing or new affected source would be required to conduct a one-time
initial performance test on the affected source. Existing affected
sources that were tested within the past 5 years of the compliance date
would be exempt from this one-time test if the test were conducted
using the same procedures specified in the proposed standards and
either no process changes had been made since the test, or the owner or
operator must demonstrate that the results of the performance test,
with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrated compliance despite
process changes.
    Existing and new affected sources would have to be tested using
Methods 5 or 17. Method 5 is a standard method for measuring PM and
Method 17 is a standard alternative method for PM where in-stack
testing is appropriate.
    Initial compliance demonstration requirements. The owner or
operator of any existing or new affected source would be required to
include initial compliance certifications for the proposed standard in
their Notification of Compliance Status.
    The owner or operator of each existing and new affected source
would be required to conduct an initial inspection of each baghouse.
The owner or operator would be required to 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 would be required to record the results of the
inspection and any maintenance action taken.
    For each installed baghouse which has been operated within 60 days
of the compliance date, the owner or operator would be required to
conduct the initial inspection no later than 60 days after the
applicable compliance date. For an installed baghouse which has not
been operated within 60 days of the compliance date, the owner or
operator would be 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 would be required to conduct either daily EPA Method 22 VE
tests or weekly visual inspections of the baghouse system ductwork for
leaks, as well as yearly inspections of the interior of the baghouse to
determine its structural integrity and to determine the condition of
the fabric filter. These monitoring requirements would ensure that the
baghouse is kept in a satisfactory state of maintenance and repair and
continues to operate efficiently.
    For new affected sources, the owner or operator would be required
to operate and maintain a bag leak detection system for each baghouse
used to comply with the proposed standards. We decided to require bag
leak detection systems because these systems can be incorporated into
the design and operation of new sources without retrofitting, as would
be the case if they were to be incorporate into existing sources. Bag
leak detection systems are typical requirements in our regulations of
new sources that are of the size and complexity as secondary nonferrous
metals processing facilities.
    The proposed standards would 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. We are proposing that
affected sources submit Initial Notifications and Notifications of
Compliance Status because they are needed to identify the affected
sources subject to the proposed standards and to confirm the compliance
status of the sources. To ensure that facilities have sufficient time
to submit the notifications once the rule is promulgated, we are
proposing that facilities submit the notifications no later than 120
days after the compliance date for this rule. The submittal date for
the notifications is based on the requirement for submitting Initial
Notifications specified in the part 63 General Provisions.
    We are soliciting information on any control technologies or
management practices used to limit emissions of PM or metal HAP from
secondary nonferrous metals processing area sources and any cost
information associated with such control approaches. We also request
comment on GACT and the proposed standards.

VI. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories From Title V
Permitting Requirements

    We are proposing exemptions from title V permitting requirements
for affected facilities in the clay ceramics and secondary nonferrous
metals processing area source categories for the reasons described
below. Glass manufacturers that would be subject to this proposed rule
are already subject to title V requirements because they are major
sources of PM, NOX, or both. Therefore, we are not proposing
to exempt the glass manufacturing area source category from title V.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits
(70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we
explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of
exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome
for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be
considered in combination, and EPA determines whether the factors,
taken together, support an exemption from title V for a particular
source category.
    We examined the four factors for both of the area source categories
that we are proposing an exemption. As explained below, after
evaluating the relevant factors, we concluded that the requirements of
title V would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories
for which we are proposing an exemption from title V.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. As discussed below in sections VI.A and VI.B of this preamble, we
have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V would not
adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment.

A. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

    We compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP
for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source category. EPA
determined that the management practices currently used at most
facilities is GACT, and the proposed rule requires recordkeeping that
serves as monitoring and deviation reporting to assure compliance with
the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V
exemption because this proposed standard provides monitoring that
assures compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. For
atomized glaze spray operations, the proposed NESHAP requires the use
of PM control systems (e.g., water-wash system or wet scrubber) or
management practices (e.g., HVLP spray equipment); and periodic visual
APCD inspections at existing sources; daily VE tests; or an EPA-
approved alternate monitoring program. For kilns that fire glazed
ceramic ware, the proposed NESHAP requires management practices (i.e.,
kiln fuel and firing temperature) and a daily peak firing temperature
check. For those compliance options involving management practices,
monitoring other than recordkeeping is not practical or appropriate.
Records are required to assure that the management practices are
followed, including records of the type of air pollution control used,
the types and quantities of wet glazes used, the type of fuel used in
the kilns, and the kiln peak firing temperature.
    As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report,
deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
For any affected clay ceramics manufacturing area source facility, the
proposed NESHAP requires an initial notification and a notification of
compliance status. The proposed clay ceramics manufacturing NESHAP also
requires affected facilities to maintain records showing compliance
with the required equipment standard and management practices. The
information

required in the notifications and records is similar to the information
that must be provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might
impose additional compliance requirements on this category, but we have
determined that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed NESHAP for clay ceramics manufacturing are
sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and
title V would not significantly improve those compliance requirements.
    For the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not have
specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting clay
ceramics manufacturing area sources; however, there are certain
activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities
are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading
and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining
and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up
questions from permitting authorities after the application is
submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records;
preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more
frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as
defined by the State, which may include a combination of written,
verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information,
preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification;
preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as
needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In
addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources
obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand
and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70
provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as
well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for
a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources
(hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5,
70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities, we found that 34 of the 51 plants affected by the proposed
rule are small businesses, most with only 100 or fewer employees. These
small sources lack the technical resources needed to comprehend and
comply with permitting requirements and the financial resources needed
to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. As discussed above,
title V permitting would impose significant costs on these area
sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant
burden for sources in this category. Most are small businesses with
limited resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous
mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying,
whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore,
given the number of sources in the category and the relatively small
size of many of those sources, it would likely be difficult for them to
obtain assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we find that
factor two strongly supports title V exemption for clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second
factor that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a
significant burden on most of the 51 clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities affected by the proposed rule. We also concluded in
considering the first factor that, while title V might impose
additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the proposed NESHAP assure compliance with the
equipment standard and management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that
there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to
assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs of compliance with
title V are so high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low,
title V permitting is not justified for this source category.
Accordingly, the third factor supports title V exemptions for clay
ceramics manufacturing area sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. There are State
programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP, and we believe
that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with this
NESHAP. We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We further noted that
small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be
used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V
permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance
assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance
programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these
additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of
compliance with this area source NESHAP. We believe that the statutory
requirements for implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the
delegated States and EPA and the additional assistance programs
described above together are sufficient to assure compliance with this
area source NESHAP without title V permits.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP without
relying on title V permitting.

    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome.
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed,
we conclude that there would not be significant improvements to the
compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this
proposed rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the
standards and management practices imposed on this area source
category. We also conclude that the costs of compliance with title V,
in conjunction with the likely difficulty this number of small sources
would have obtaining assistance from the permitting authority, would
impose a significant burden on the sources. We determined that the high
relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely to be
little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were required.
And, finally, there are adequate implementation and enforcement
programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Thus, we
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for
the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area source
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing area source category from title V requirements would not
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The
title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality
control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain
procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable
to existing or new area sources.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, placing all
requirements for the sources in a title V permit would do little to
clarify the requirements applicable to the sources or assist them in
compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the
sources and the NESHAP, and the fact that these sources are not subject
to other NESHAP. We have no reason to think that new sources would be
substantially different from the existing sources. In addition, we
explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring permits for the large
number of area sources could, at least in the first few years of
implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or
the environment by shifting State agency resources away from assuring
compliance for major sources with existing permits to issuing new
permits for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air
program effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, we conclude that
title V exemptions for the clay ceramics manufacturing area sources
will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment
for all of the reasons explained above.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to exempt the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing area source category from title V permitting
requirements.

B. Secondary Nonferrous Metal Processing

    We compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to such requirements in the NESHAP for the
Secondary Nonferrous Metal Processing area source category. The
proposed rule requires that the affected sources conduct weekly
monitoring of the required control device (i.e., baghouse or fabric
filter) for existing sources and continuous monitoring of the required
control device for new sources. As discussed above, we believe that
these monitoring requirements are adequate to assure compliance with
the control requirements specified in the proposed NESHAP. The
monitoring component of the first factor favors title V exemption
because this proposed standard provides monitoring that assures
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule.
    We also considered the extent to which title V could potentially
enhance compliance for area sources covered by this NESHAP through
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. For any affected secondary
nonferrous metal processing area source facility, the proposed NESHAP
requires an initial notification and a compliance status report, which
would include certifications by responsible officials that the
facilities are in compliance and will continue to comply with the
NESHAP. In addition, the affected facilities must maintain records
showing compliance with the required monitoring. The required records
are similar to the information that must be provided in the deviation
reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We
believe that these requirements are adequate to assure compliance with
the provisions of the NESHAP.
    We acknowledge that title V includes some reporting requirements
that are not in the proposed NESHAP, including requirements for a 6-
month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual certification
in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. However, as described above, we have
determined that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under the proposed NESHAP are sufficient to assure
compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP. Therefore, we do not
believe that these additional title V reporting requirements would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements.
    Under the second factor, we determined whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. (See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05.) EPA does not have
specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting secondary
nonferrous metal processing area sources; however, there are certain
source activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These
activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include
reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations;
obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-
up questions from permitting authorities after the application is
submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records;
preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more
frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as
defined by the

State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other
communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual
services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help
them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR
for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here.
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for secondary nonferrous metal
processing facilities, we found that 6 of the 10 plants are small
businesses, most with only a few employees. These small sources lack
the technical resources needed to comply with permitting requirements
and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or
outside consultants. As discussed above, title V permitting would
impose significant economic and non-economic costs on these area
sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant
burden for sources in this category. In addition, many of the sources
in this area source category are small businesses. Under title V, they
would be subject to numerous mandatory activities, and because of
limited resources, they would have difficulty complying, whether they
were issued a standard or a general permit. Thus, we find that factor
two supports title V exemption for secondary nonferrous metal
processing facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on many secondary nonferrous
metal processing facilities. We also concluded in considering the first
factor that the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in the NESHAP
are adequate to assure compliance with the management practices
proposed in the NESHAP and that the additional title V compliance
requirements would not significantly improve compliance with this
NESHAP. In addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor as
discussed below, we find that there are adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Because the costs, both economic and non-economic, of compliance with
title V are so high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low,
title V permitting is not justified for this source category.
Accordingly, the third factor supports title V exemptions for secondary
nonferrous metal processing area sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining whether title V
permitting for the Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source
category is unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits.
There are State programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP,
and we believe that these State programs are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP. Furthermore, EPA retains authority to
enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. In
addition to the State programs and EPA's authorities to implement and
enforce this NESHAP, small business assistance programs required by CAA
section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted
from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We believe
that the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of
this NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA and the additional
assistance programs described above together are sufficient to assure
compliance with this area source NESHAP without title V permits.
    Furthermore, in applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule,
where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption for several
years, we had enforcement data demonstrating that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of those area source NESHAP, but that the
States were also providing compliance assistance to assure that the
area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See
70 FR 75325-75326. Although we do not have similar data in this case
because the Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source NESHAP
has yet to be promulgated and enforced, we have no reason to think that
States will be less diligent in enforcing NESHAP.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the Secondary Nonferrous Metal Processing NESHAP
without relying on title V permitting.
    Based on our assessment of the four factors as described above, we
find that, when considered together, the four factors demonstrate that
compliance with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome for sources
in the Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source category.
While title V might add additional compliance requirements, we believe
that there would not be significant improvements to compliance with the
NESHAP because the requirements in this proposed rule assure compliance
with the standards. Furthermore, there are adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. On
the other hand, the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V, would impose a significant burden on the sources. We believe
that the high relative costs would not be justified given that there is
likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were
required. Based on these considerations, we conclude that title V
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the Secondary Nonferrous
Metal Processing area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Secondary Nonferrous Metal Processing
area source category from title V requirements would adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Processing area source category from title V
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of control would remain the same even if
a permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the

compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, placing all
requirements for the sources in a title V permit would do little to
clarify the requirements applicable to the sources or assist them in
compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the
sources and the NESHAP, and the fact that these sources are not subject
to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. We have no
reason to think that new sources would be substantially different from
the existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule
that requiring permits could, at least in the first few years of
implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or
the environment by shifting State agency resources away from assuring
compliance for major sources with existing permits to issuing new
permits for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air
program effectiveness. We therefore conclude that title V exemptions
for the secondary nonferrous metal processing area sources will not
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all of
the reasons explained above.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to exempt the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Processing area source category from title V
permitting requirements.

VII. What are the impacts of the proposed standards for area sources?

A. Glass Manufacturing

1. Air Quality Impacts
    For the three sources that would be required to install emission
controls to meet the emission limits specified in this proposed rule,
we estimated nationwide emissions of the glass manufacturing metal HAP
to be 26.2 Mg/yr (28.9 tpy). We estimate that the rule as proposed
would reduce nationwide emissions of the glass manufacturing metal HAP
by about 25.6 Mg/yr (28.2 tpy). This proposed rule would also reduce
emissions of PM by 377 Mg/yr (415 tpy). These estimates are based on
the assumption that an ESP would be installed on one pressed and blown
glass furnace, and that fabric filters would be installed on two
pressed and blown glass furnaces.
    We project that, during the first 3 years of the proposed standard,
nine new furnaces would be constructed and that all nine furnaces would
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 would be
affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, we estimate that this
proposed rule would have no air quality impacts on new sources.
    Indirect or secondary air impacts of this rule as proposed would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices. Assuming that plants would purchase
electricity from a power plant, we estimate that the standards as
proposed would increase secondary emissions of criteria pollutants,
including PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) from power plants. For three
existing sources that would be required to install emission controls,
the proposed rule would 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 3 years, we estimate no secondary air impacts
because we project that none of the new sources would be affected
sources under this proposed rule.
2. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
    To comply with the rule as proposed, we expect that affected
facilities would control emissions by installing and operating ESP or
fabric filters, neither of which generates wastewater. Therefore, we
project that this rule as proposed would 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 the
proposed rule would generate 37.7 Mg/yr (41.6 tpy) of solid waste from
existing sources. These estimates are based on the assumption that an
ESP would be installed on one pressed and blown glass furnace, and that
fabric filters would be installed on two pressed and blown glass
furnaces. For new sources, we estimate that this proposed rule would
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 would be required
under the proposed rule. We assume that affected facilities would
comply with the rule as proposed by installing and operating either ESP
or fabric filters which require electricity to operate. Specifically,
we assumed that an ESP would be installed on one pressed and blown
glass furnace, and that fabric filters would be installed on two
pressed and blown glass furnaces. Under this scenario, we project that
this rule as proposed would increase overall energy demand (i.e.,
electricity demand) for existing sources by about 1,160 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 3 years of the standard
would be affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, we are not
expecting any energy impacts for new sources.
4. Cost Impacts
    The estimated total capital costs of this proposed 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 the proposed rule for existing sources would be
$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 would be
required to install new emission controls. The other affected
facilities would 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 would
be required under the proposed rule.
    We estimate that none of the nine new sources projected to go into
operation during the first 3 years of the standard would be affected
sources under this proposed rule. Therefore, we estimate no cost
impacts for new sources.
5. Economic Impacts
    Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs

among affected facilities can have an impact in determining how the
market would change in response to the rule. Total annualized costs for
this proposed rule are estimated to be approximately $0.48 million.
Only three facilities are estimated to require additional capital costs
because of the proposed rule.
    We obtained revenue data for two of the three companies that
operate facilities that would be required to install emission controls
under this proposed rule. Based on those data, cost-to-sales estimates
for those two affected facilities would be 0.66 percent and 1.0
percent, respectively. Revenue data were not available for the other
facility that would be affected by the proposed 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 proposed GACT determination
reflects such controls. We estimate that the only impact to affected
sources is the labor burden associated with the proposed 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
and are well-controlled. Affected sources are well-controlled and our
proposed GACT determinations reflect such controls. We estimate that
the only impact associated with the proposed 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.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed 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 Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2274.01.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed rule
is 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 proposed NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing area sources
requires applicable one-time notifications required by the NESHAP
General Provisions. Plant owners or operators would be required to
include compliance certifications for the management practices in their
Notifications of Compliance Status. The affected facilities 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 3 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 3 years).
No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are
associated with the proposed 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 3
years.
    The proposed NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing also would require
applicable one-time notifications required by the NESHAP General
Provisions, monitoring of control device parameters, and recordkeeping.
The annual burden for this collection of information averaged over the
first 3 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 would be subject to this proposed 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 3-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 3 years.
    The proposed NESHAP for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area
sources requires one-time notifications required by the NESHAP General
Provisions. Plant owners or operators would be 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 facilities 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 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 15 labor hours per year
at a cost of approximately $1,300 for 3 existing secondary nonferrous
metals processing area sources (10 existing sources averaged over 3
years). No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are
associated with the proposed 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 3 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.
    To comment on EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection