Notices. Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Other Federal Agencies

62,061 words·~282 min read·/register/2007/09/20/07-4651·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [4910-RY] Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Utah AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Other Federal Agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA, USACE, and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).

The actions relate to a proposed highway project, U.S. Route 6, I-15 in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in the State of Utah. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 18, 2008. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Edward T. Woolford, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 2520 West 4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake City, Utah 84118, Telephone

(801)963-0182. The FHWA Utah Division Office's normal business hours are 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. [MST]. For UDOT: Ms. Rebecka Stromness, Environmental Program Manager, Utah Department of Transportation, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119, Telephone

(801)965-4327. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA, USACE, and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Utah: U.S. Route 6, I-15 in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in the State of Utah. The project will be 127 miles long, four-lane highway (two lanes in each direction), except for certain areas near wetlands where a passing-lane configuration would be implemented to minimize or avoid wetland impacts. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)for the project, approved on September 22, 2005, in the FHWA Record of Decision

(ROD)issued on December 22, 2005, and in other documents in the FHWA project files. The FEIS, ROD, and other project records are available by contacting the FHWA or the Utah Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at *http://www.udot.utah.gov/* or viewed at public libraries in the project area. The USACE decision and permit (USACE Permit 200250387) are available by contacting U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: 1. *General:* National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 2. *Air:* Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)]. 3. *Land:* Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 319]. 4. *Wildlife:* Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Marine Mammal Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 1361]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712]. 5. *Historic and Cultural Resources:* Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) *et seq.* ]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(ll)]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013]. 6. *Social and Economic:* Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act

(FPPA)[7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]. 7. *Wetlands and Water Resources:* Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377]; Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF)[16 U.S.C. 4601-4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA)[42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401-406]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(M) and 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128. 8. *Executive Orders:* E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). Issued on: September 14, 2007. Walter C. Waidelich, Jr., Division Administrator, Salt Lake City. [FR Doc. E7-18545 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Correction to Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request Notice AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments; correction. Correction In notice document E7-17877, published in the issue of Tuesday, September 11, 2007, at 72 FR 51904-51905, make the following correction: On page 51905, in the fourth paragraph (titled “ *Current Actions:* ”), in the third sentence, the phrase “the tobacco manufacturer” should read “the brewer”. Dated: September 13, 2007. Francis W. Foote, Director, Regulations and Rulings Division. [FR Doc. E7-18509 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P 72 182 Thursday, September 20, 2007 Proposed Rules Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 Revision of Source Category Lists for Standards Under Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-8470-2] RIN 2060-AM71 Revision of Source Category Lists for Standards Under Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of revisions to source category lists. SUMMARY: EPA is adding electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities to the list of source categories subject to regulation under Clean Air Act

(CAA)section 112(c)(6) and revising the area source category list for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. At the same time, EPA is proposing national emission standards for electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities that are area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The proposed standards establish requirements for the control of mercury emissions that are based on the maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)and requirements for the control of other hazardous air pollutants that are based on generally available control technology or management practices. 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 rule, written comments must be received by November 5, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before October 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. * • *Fax:*

(202)566-9744. • *Mail:* National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 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-2004-0083. 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* Web site 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 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Docket at the EPA Docket and Information Center in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number

(919)541-5289; fax number

(919)541-3207, e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? The regulated category and entities affected by this proposed action include: Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry 331111 Steel mills with electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities. 1 North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.10680 of subpart YYYYY (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? Do not submit information containing 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 EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. 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 notice and proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web

(WWW)through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this 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 rule 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

(919)541-7966 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. E. How is this document organized? The information 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? E. How is this document organized? II. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP? B. What criteria did EPA use in developing this proposed NESHAP? III. Addition and Revision to Source Category Lists IV. Proposed NESHAP for EAF Steelmaking Facilities A. What area source category is affected by the proposed NESHAP? B. What are the production processes and emissions sources? C. Summary of the Proposed Requirements D. What is our rationale for the proposed MACT and GACT standards? V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations II. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP? Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of area sources, 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 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. 2 Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) within the time frame specified by the statute. *See Sierra Club* v. *Johnston,* 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). 1 An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air pollutant

(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, EPA has revised the area source category list several times. We added electric arc furnace

(EAF)steelmaking facilities to the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43112). The inclusion of this source category 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. This source category was listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source emissions for the following “Urban HAP”: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and trichloroethylene. We subsequently discovered that the 1990 emissions data for trichloroethylene was for a few specialty EAF facilities that used trichloroethylene in vapor degreasing. These emission units at both major and area sources are already subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing any additional standards for trichloroethylene from EAF steelmaking facilities. Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and subject to standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), categories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of emissions of each of seven specific HAP: alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,9-tetrachlorodibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin. Congress targeted these HAP for regulation because of their persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment. These HAP are also associated with adverse health effects such as nervous system damage and reproductive effects. We published an initial list of source categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) on April 10, 1998 (63 FR 17838). As discussed below in section III of this preamble, we are adding EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources to this list of source categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on the basis of mercury emissions. During the development of these proposed emissions standards, we discovered two EAF facilities that are co-located at integrated iron and steel plants that are major sources, of which we were previously not aware. We plan to list EAF steelmaking facilities as major sources under CAA section 112(c) and to develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for them based on the performance of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). However, these two major sources are not needed to fulfill the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement to develop standards for sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the emissions of mercury so we are not pursuing such action in this rulemaking given the severe time constraints to which this rulemaking is subject. B. What criteria did EPA use in developing this proposed NESHAP? We are proposing standards for mercury in response to a court-ordered deadline that requires promulgation of standards for listed CAA section 112(c)(6) source categories by December 15, 2007 ( *Sierra Club* v. *Johnson* , no. 01-1537, D.D.C). The proposed standards for mercury emissions from all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources of HAP are consistent with CAA section 112(c)(6). The court order in *Sierra Club* v. *Johnson* also requires EPA to issue standards for 10 source categories that EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) by December 15, 2007. In response to this requirement, we are proposing standards based on generally available control technology

(GACT)for the control of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel from area source electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities. The bases for these standards are described below. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 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.” The alternative is to base standards on performance of MACT under section 112(d)(2) and

(3)as described below. Additional information on the definition of “generally available control technology or management practices” is found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the CAA (S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 171-172). That report states that GACT is to encompass: * * * 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 this legislative history, we can and do consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA is electing to propose standards under CAA section 112(c)(3) based on GACT for EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources. As stated further below (see section IV.D.3 of this preamble), we do not believe that a choice to base standards for these area sources on GACT, rather than MACT, requires justification. However, should justification be required, we are proposing standards based on GACT rather than on MACT because these facilities are already well controlled for the metal HAP these sources emit, and a regulation based on GACT will appropriately allow us to consider the costs and economic impacts of more stringent regulations. See the discussion of particulate matter

(PM)controls in section IV.D.4 of this preamble. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for EAF area sources because, given their current well-controlled levels, a MACT floor determination could result in only marginal reductions in HAP emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in control. The consideration of cost is especially important for the small businesses that operate small specialty and stainless steel EAF facilities. We are proposing standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) for mercury emissions from all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources of HAP. Standards established under CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect performance of MACT. The MACT-based regulation can be based on the emissions reductions achievable through application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but not limited to:

(1)Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitutions of materials, or other modifications;

(2)enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions;

(3)collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emission point;

(4)design, equipment, work practices, or operational standards as provided in section 112(h) of the CAA; or

(5)a combination of the above. 3 3 Section 112(d)(4) (not relevant here) allows alternative risk-based standards for HAP which are threshold pollutants. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (for which the Administrator has emission information) or the best performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. Although emission standards are often structured in terms of numerical emissions limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary and are authorized pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2). For example, in some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Sections 112(d)(2)(D) and 112(h) of the CAA authorize EPA to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. Under CAA section 112(h)(2), the phrase “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” includes situations in which the EPA determines that the HAP emissions cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the emissions or the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. We are proposing an emissions standard for mercury pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)(A) that is based on pollution prevention measures which “reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications.” We describe below why this standard establishes the MACT floor for mercury under section 112(d)(3), and further why we are not proposing beyond-the-floor standards for mercury. We note first, however, that we do not view standards requiring (or directly based upon) pollution prevention to be work practices under section 112(h). This is because the statute specifically differentiates between emission standards requiring pollution prevention measures (“measures which reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such [HAP] through * * * substitution of materials”) and those requiring work practices, with only the latter requiring separate justification under section 112(h). Compare section 112(d)(2)(A) and (D). 4 This is a reasonable construction, since there is reason to favor standards requiring use of pollution prevention measures, which eliminate HAP emissions altogether, over standards reflecting merely the capture of some portion of an emitted HAP. There is thus no reason to disfavor pollution prevention-based standards by allowing their use only if the section 112(h) criteria are also satisfied. 4 Such a standard is an “emission standard” since it “limits the quantity * * * of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis”. See section 302(k)(definition of “emission standard”). However, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proposed pollution prevention standards for mercury are considered to be work practices, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions limit for mercury, within the meaning of section 112(h). We believe that continuous emission monitoring systems

(CEMS)for mercury concentration and volumetric flow rate would be needed for EAF, because EAF steelmaking is a batch process, and mercury emissions vary enormously from batch to batch as different scrap sources are processed. Indeed, emissions have been shown to vary by two orders of magnitude at a single plant. 5 Cf. *Mossville Environmental Action Now* v. *EPA* , 370 F. 3d 1232, 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that EPA reasonably declined to establish MACT floor levels based on single emission level measurements from batch process operations because of constant change in those levels). 5 See “Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. We therefore examined the technological and economic feasibility of continuous monitoring for mercury from these sources. We note first that mercury CEMS are not demonstrated for EAF, raising a threshold question of their technical feasibility for all EAF. Furthermore, most EAF discharge emissions from positive pressure baghouses without stacks. Continuous mercury monitoring would not be technically feasible for these EAF (i.e., stackless EAF), even assuming that mercury CEMS were otherwise demonstrated for EAF. This is because volumetric flow rate and concentration would need to be determined by CEMS to measure the mass emission rate of mercury, and without a stack, it is nearly impossible to obtain an accurate measurement of volumetric flow rate or to obtain representative measurements of mercury concentration in the discharged emissions. Indeed, EPA has previously determined that the use of continuous opacity monitoring systems

(COMS)was not feasible for positive pressure baghouses without stacks for this reason. 6, 7 6 For example, EPA estimated that 70 of 130 electric arc furnaces

(EAF)subject to the new source performance standard

(NSPS)were not required to install continuous opacity monitors because of the configuration of their baghouse. (See the EPA fact sheet for the NSPS amendments available at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fact_sheets/eaf_npsfs.pdf* ). 7 Retrofitting such sources with stacks would be extremely costly for most electric arc furnaces

(EAFs)to the point that it would not be economically practicable to do so. See “Estimated Impacts of Proposed Area Source Standard for EAF” in EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. EPA believes that one takes a source as one finds it for purposes of applying section 112(h), and therefore that it is simply not technologically practicable to apply continuous mercury monitoring technology to a stackless EAF. Some EAF do have stacks, and the limited amount of mercury emissions data from EAF which EPA has comes from such sources. These limited test data were collected using manual test methods and are therefore not reliable for determining an EAF's actual performance because these short-term test results are not representative of the long-term operation of a cyclic batch process. The results of the different manual tests (typically 1-hour runs) show a variability of over two orders of magnitude within a single source (as well as across sources) and reinforce the conclusion that continuous monitoring would be needed to prescribe and enforce a numerical emissions limit for mercury. 8 As noted, CEMS are not demonstrated for these sources. For these reasons, we do not believe it technologically practicable to apply continuous measurement methodology to even EAFs with stacks. 8 See “Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data” in EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. We also examined the possibility of setting a direct limit on the amount of mercury entering the EAF and thus limiting emissions. 9 However, the scrap charged to EAF includes many shapes and sizes, bundles, discrete pieces, and various sizes of shredded metal. Accordingly, there is no way to obtain representative samples for analysis of mercury content to develop or enforce a mercury limit for the scrap. The number of mercury switches in the scrap (the predominant source of mercury in the scrap, and hence to an EAF) also cannot be determined for the same reasons. In addition, the switches would not be recognizable after scrap dealers have crushed and shredded incoming scrap. Consequently, we propose that it is not feasible or practicable to establish a limit for mercury in the scrap. 9 However, as explained in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, the standard we are proposing effectively establishes such a limit. The pollution prevention approach which is the basis for the proposed MACT standard for mercury is discussed below in section IV.D.1 of this preamble. III. Addition and Revision to Source Category Lists Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of seven specific HAP. Since the publication of the original 1998 CAA section 112(c)(6) source category list, we have collected additional data on mercury emissions in 1990 and performed another review of information on the 1990 baseline emissions inventory that served as the basis for the listing. In re-evaluating the baseline inventory, we have determined that EAF steelmaking facilities emit mercury and contributed to the 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of mercury in 1990, and we have updated our estimates of the 1990 baseline year to reflect this contribution of mercury from EAF. 10 Consequently, we are adding EAF steelmaking facilities to the list of source categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) on the basis of mercury emissions. 10 Additional information on the “1990 Emissions Inventory of Section 112(c)(6) Pollutants” is available at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112c6/112c6pg.html.* This notice also announces a revision to the area source category list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). The revision changes the name of the listed area source category, “Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF)” to “Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities.” We are making this revision to clarify that the source category includes all types of steel made in EAF, such as stainless steel, carbon steel, specialty steel, and other grades and alloys of steel. This is simply a change in the name of the source category and does not change the universe of sources that were the basis of the original listing notice. IV. Proposed NESHAP for EAF Steelmaking Facilities A. What area source category is affected by the proposed NESHAP? The EAF steelmaking area source category consists of facilities engaged in the production of steel using EAF to melt primarily ferrous scrap to produce molten steel. The molten steel is refined by ladle metallurgy processing and subsequently cast into basic steel shapes that are further processed in rolling mills. The U.S. steel industry produced about 106 million tons of raw steel in 2006, and approximately 93 “minimills” that melt ferrous scrap in EAF accounted for 57 percent of the total U.S. production. Critically, for purposes of the mercury standard proposed in this rule, the EAF at minimills produce steel by melting recycled ferrous scrap. The reason this is critical is that the mercury emitted by EAF comes almost exclusively from automotive scrap, and approximately 50 to 80 percent of this mercury can be eliminated from the scrap feed by pollution prevention measures carried out upstream of the EAF. The production of steel in minimills has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. Minimills accounted for 10 percent of the national steel production in 1970, 30 to 40 percent in the 1980s, 40 to 50 percent in the 1990s, and (as noted) 57 percent in 2006. The growth has been attributed in part to an expansion in the types and quality of steel products that minimills can produce, including heavy structurals, rail, plate, specialty bar, hot rolled, cold rolled, galvanized, and stainless flat rolled products. Most of the steel produced in EAF is carbon steel used in the manufacture of construction materials, automobiles, appliances, and other applications. Approximately 4 percent (about 2 million tons) is specialty and stainless steel, which are high value steel products. The types of steel are defined by their composition of alloying elements. Stainless and alloy steels contain less carbon and zinc and more chromium, manganese, and nickel than carbon steels. Some stainless steel grades contain 12 to 28 percent chromium and 4 to 25 percent nickel. U.S. minimills are the largest recyclers of metal scrap in the world. Recycled iron and steel scrap nationwide in 2004 included 25 percent “home scrap” (from current operations at the plant), 26 percent “prompt scrap” (from plants manufacturing steel products), and 49 percent post-consumer scrap. The primary source of post-consumer scrap is the automobile, and in 2004, the steel industry recycled 14.2 million tons of iron and steel scrap from 14 million vehicles. B. What are the production processes and emissions sources? Most EAF are equipped with three carbon electrodes that are raised or lowered through the furnace roof. When the electrodes are retracted, the furnace roof can be rotated to allow the charge of scrap steel by an overhead crane. Electric current that is passed between the electrodes and through the scrap generates heat to melt the scrap. The stages of each production cycle include charging (loading scrap and other raw materials into the furnace), melting, removing slag (a layer of impurities that forms on top of the molten steel), and tapping (pouring molten steel into a ladle). Operating cycles in this batch process range from 35 to more than 200 minutes; the longer cycle times are generally used when producing stainless and specialty steels. After tapping, the steel is transferred to the ladle metallurgy facility where it undergoes additional refining in a ladle to produce the desired final properties. After the composition and temperature are adjusted in the ladle metallurgy facility, the molten steel is transferred to the continuous caster, which forms the steel into semi-finished shapes. The steel shapes are then processed in rolling mills to produce the final steel product. Emissions from the EAF occur during charging, melting, and tapping. Emissions may also occur when the molten steel is processed at the ladle metallurgy facility. The type and volume of emissions of HAP metals are affected by the quantity and type of HAP metals in the ferrous scrap being melted and the addition of certain alloys (e.g., chromium, manganese, and nickel). Some HAP metals, such as manganese, are an inherent and necessary component of ferrous scrap and the final steel product. Other HAP metals, such as mercury, arsenic, and cadmium, are undesirable elements introduced with the ferrous scrap. Other HAP metals, such as chromium and nickel, are introduced as alloying elements and are necessary to produce stainless and specialty steels. Capture systems for emissions from EAF typically include direct-shell evacuation control

(DEC)systems; canopy hoods, side draft hoods, and tapping hoods; partial or total enclosures; scavenger duct systems; and building evacuation systems. The most common types of capture systems for ladle metallurgy are canopy hoods, side draft hoods, and close fitting hoods. Nearly all plants duct process and fugitive emissions to a baghouse. These capture systems and PM control devices are highly efficient for the capture and control of PM and HAP metals that are in particulate form, including the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. However, mercury emitted from the EAF is in vapor form and is not controlled by the PM control devices. A detailed survey of 27 plants showed that EAF steelmaking facilities use scrap specifications, scrap management plans, and inspections to ensure that charge materials do not adversely affect the quality of steel or create dangerous operating conditions. Common requirements include testing for radiation; rejecting scrap containing sealed containers, hazardous materials, or explosives; and prohibiting materials such as lead, copper, oil, grease, batteries, and refrigerants. Most plants also require some type of visual inspection of incoming scrap. These scrap management procedures also serve to reduce HAP emissions by preventing HAP materials and precursors from entering the EAF and subsequently being emitted. C. Summary of the Proposed Requirements This section presents a summary of the requirements of the proposed rule. Additional details and the rationale for the proposed requirements are provided in the following section IV.D of this preamble. 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates The proposed NESHAP applies to each new or existing EAF steelmaking facility that is an area source of HAP. We are proposing that the owner or operator of an existing area source that does not have to install or modify emissions control equipment to meet the opacity limit for fugitive emissions comply with all applicable rule requirements no later than six months after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . We are proposing that the owner or operator of an existing area source that must install or modify emission control equipment to meet the opacity limit for fugitive emissions may request a compliance date for the opacity limit that is no later than two years after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** based on a demonstration to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the additional time is needed. The owner or operator of a new affected source would be required to comply with all applicable rule requirements by the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** (if the startup date is on or before promulgation) or upon startup (if the startup date is after promulgation). 2. Proposed MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury The proposed standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention and require an EAF owner or operator who melts scrap from motor vehicles either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved program for the removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the alternative requirements described below. EAF facilities participating in an approved program must maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program. A proposed compliance option is for the EAF facility to prepare and operate pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan that includes specifications to the scrap provider that mercury switches must be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an efficiency comparable to that of the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program (see below). An equivalent compliance option is provided for facilities that do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury switches. We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) 11 would be an approved program under this proposed standard. Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a compliance option would have to assume all of the responsibilities for steelmakers as described in the Memorandum of Understanding. The NVMSRP is described in detail in section IV.D.1 of this preamble. 11 Additional details can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm* and in section IV.D.1 of this preamble. In particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding. EAF facilities could also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or operator would have to submit a request to the Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing scrap from scrap providers that are participating in another switch removal program and demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the program meets the following specified criteria:

(1)There is an outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on switch removal,

(2)the program has a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches, and

(3)the program sponsor must submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a percentage of switches removed is easily derivable). EAF facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal program would have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in conformance with a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury switches. The facility's scrap specifications would have to include a requirement for the removal of mercury switches, and the plan must include provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that mercury switches have been removed. The plan would be submitted to the Administrator for approval and would demonstrate how the facility will comply with specific requirements that include:

(1)A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper disposal of the mercury switches,

(2)provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap specifications,

(3)provisions for periodic inspection, site visits, or other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap,

(4)provisions for taking corrective actions if needed, and

(5)requiring each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and the basis for the estimate. The Administrator would be able to request documentation or additional information from the owner or operator at any time. The site-specific plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches. All documented and verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap would count towards the 80 percent goal. An equivalent compliance option would be provided for EAF steelmakers who do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury. The option would require the facility to certify that the only materials they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy, such as chromium in certain exhaust systems. Such materials are known not to contain mercury, and because the specialty steels must meet stringent product quality and performance specifications, automobile scrap with contaminants such as mercury, lead, zinc, and copper is not accepted. 12 12 Letter from Joseph Green, Counsel to the Specialty Steel Industry of North America, to Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency. Information Regarding Specialty Steel Industry Segment. July 30, 2004. 3. Proposed GACT Standards for EAF and Ladle Metallurgy Operations We propose that the owner or operator would be required to install, operate, and maintain capture systems for EAF and ladle metallurgy operations that convey the collected gases and fumes to a venturi scrubber or baghouse for the removal of PM. We are proposing separate emissions limits for new and existing EAF steelmaking facilities that produce less than 150,000 tpy of stainless or specialty steel, and for larger, non-specialty EAF steelmaking facilities. The small facilities would be required to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.8 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of steel for each control device serving an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation and an opacity limit of 6 percent for melt shop emissions. All other EAF steelmaking facilities (both existing and new) would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) for emissions from a control device for an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation. The opacity of emissions from melt shops from these sources would be limited to 6 percent. Performance tests would be required for each emissions source to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM and opacity limits. Provisions are included in the proposed rule for conducting the tests. The owner or operator of an existing EAF steelmaking facility would be allowed to certify initial compliance with the emissions limits if a previous test was conducted during the past 5 years using the methods and procedures in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the test results, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. All EAF steelmaking facilities would be required to obtain a title V permit. The proposed rule would require each EAF steelmaking facility to monitor the capture system, PM control device, and melt shop; maintain records; and submit reports according to the compliance assurance monitoring

(CAM)requirements in 40 CFR part 64. The existing part 64 rule requires the owner or operator to establish appropriate ranges for selected indicators for each emissions unit ( *i.e.* , operating limits) such that operation within the ranges will provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the emissions limitations or standards. The CAM rule requires the owner or operator to submit certain monitoring information to the permitting authority for approval. This information includes:

(1)The indicators to be monitored;

(2)the ranges or designated conditions for such indicators, or the process by which such indicator ranges or designated conditions will be established;

(3)performance criteria for the monitoring; and if applicable,

(4)the indicator ranges and performance criteria for a CEMS, COMS, or predictive emissions monitoring system. The owner or operator also must submit a justification for the proposed elements of the monitoring control device (and process and capture system, if applicable) and operating parameter data obtained during the conduct of the applicable compliance or performance test. If monitoring indicates that the unit is operating outside of the acceptable range established in its permit, the owner or operator must return the operation to within the established range consistent with 40 CFR 64.7(d). 4. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap Management In addition to meeting PM and opacity limits reflecting GACT, we are also proposing that EAF facilities be required to restrict the use of certain scrap or follow a pollution prevention plan for scrap inspection and selection that minimizes the amount of specific contaminants in the scrap. The proposed requirements are based on two pollution prevention approaches depending on the type of scrap that is used, and a facility may have some scrap subject to one approach and other scrap subject to the other approach. One provision is for scrap that does not contain certain contaminants and would simply prohibit the processing of scrap containing these contaminants (restricted scrap). Compliance would be demonstrated by a certification that the owner or operator will not process scrap with the contaminants. This scrap management approach is expected to be most useful to stainless and specialty steel producers with stringent scrap specifications that do not permit the use of motor vehicle scrap and scrap containing free organic liquids. The other approach for scrap that may contain certain contaminants is more prescriptive and requires a pollution prevention plan, scrap specifications, and procedures for determining that these requirements are met. This pollution prevention approach was developed primarily for carbon steel producers that accept motor vehicle scrap and many other types of ferrous scrap. Under the restricted scrap provision, the plant owner or operator would agree to restrict the use of certain scrap, including metallic scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers and capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-containing components, chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. The restriction on lead-containing components would not apply to the production of leaded steel (where lead is obviously needed for production). The other proposed scrap management provision would require the plant owner or operator to prepare a pollution prevention plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead (except for the production of leaded steel), and free organic liquids. This plan would be submitted to the Administrator for approval. The owner or operator would be required to keep a copy of the plan onsite and train plant personnel with materials acquisition or inspection duties in the plan's requirements. The plan would include specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of lead-containing components (except for the production of leaded steel), undrained used oil filters, chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The plan would also contain procedures for determining if these requirements are met ( *e.g.* , visual inspection or periodic audits of scrap suppliers) and procedures for taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not within specifications. 5. Proposed Requirements for Recordkeeping and Reporting Area sources subject to the proposed requirements for EAF and ladle metallurgy operations would be subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the part 64 CAM rule. The general recordkeeping requirements of the part 64 rule directs the owner or operator to comply with the recordkeeping requirements for title V operating permits in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii), which require records of analyses, measurements, and sampling data. The part 64 rule also requires the owner or operator to maintain records of monitoring data, monitor performance data, corrective actions taken, any written quality improvement plan (QIP), any activities undertaken to implement a QIP, and other supporting information required by the part 64 rule (such as data used to document the adequacy of monitoring, or records of monitoring maintenance or corrective actions). The general reporting requirements of part 64 require the owner or operator to submit monitoring reports to the permitting authority in accordance with the requirements for facilities with title V operating permits. The title V reporting requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(1) include a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and annual compliance certifications. The reporting requirements under part 64 requires that the 6-month monitoring report include:

(1)Summary information on the number, duration and cause (including unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, as applicable, and the corrective actions taken;

(2)summary information on the number, duration and cause (including unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor downtime incidents (other than downtime associated with zero and span or other daily calibration checks, if applicable); and

(g)to 1.2 g of mercury per switch. These switches (called mercury switches or tilt switches) control lights under the hoods and in the trunks of older model vehicles. The Ecology Center estimated that the vehicles retired in 2003 contained 8.5 million switches and 9.3 tons of mercury. Pilot studies in New Jersey and Michigan reported 0.54 to 0.8 mercury switches per vehicle processed. For 14 million vehicles recycled in 2004, the number of switches thus would be in the range of 7.6 to 11 million. Although mercury switches were phased out of automobiles in 2002, there is a 10 to 15 year supply of existing vehicles destined for recycling that still contain the switches. There are other components in automobile scrap which contain small amounts of mercury, such as anti-lock braking sensors, security systems, and active ride control systems. However, most of the mercury is contributed by convenience light switches, which are estimated to be the source of 87 percent of the mercury in motor vehicle scrap by the Ecology Center. 13 13 The Ecology Center report and other information cited for mercury switches is available in EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. We have very limited data on the mercury species emitted from EAFs; however, the limited data indicate that over 99 percent of the mercury emissions are in the gaseous form, and about 93 percent of the gaseous mercury is elemental mercury. Although baghouses are highly efficient at removing HAP metals that are in the particulate phase, the baghouses do not control gaseous or vapor phase mercury and thus (for practical purposes) do not control mercury emissions from EAFs. No EAFs use add-on controls for gaseous mercury emissions. The limited test data show extreme variability (orders of magnitude) in mercury emissions from plant to plant and from the same plant over time as different batches of scrap are melted. The limited sampling results of input materials likewise indicate that the mercury content of scrap typically varies widely. 14 14 See “Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. We also examined scrap specifications that may be in use to reduce mercury emissions. Three companies reported in their survey responses that their scrap specifications prohibited mercury-containing components. However, there was no measure of effectiveness of the written specification. Over the past few years, there has been an increasing awareness that a highly effective way of reducing mercury releases to the environment from scrap using entities like EAFs is to remove mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles prior to crushing, shredding, and melting. Numerous interested parties have been involved at the local, State, and national level in the development and implementation of switch removal programs, including local and State environmental agencies, national and local environmental groups, steel recyclers, steel producers, automobile makers, various EPA offices, and others. Many successful State and local switch removal programs are already in place, and more are expected in the future. Several State programs for mercury switch removal have been implemented, and there are many different variations. Some programs are mandated by law, and others are voluntary. Some offer financial incentives provided by different stakeholders, some specify financial incentives to be provided by automobile makers, and some have no financial incentives. Some have a strict accounting of switches removed and requirements for proper collection, management, and disposal of the switches. There have been direct measurements of the mercury emission reductions that can be achieved at minimills by switch removal programs. For example, a pilot program administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reported a reduction of 50 percent in mercury emissions when the EAF melted scrap that had been processed in a switch removal program. 15 We also identified one minimill in Minnesota that had implemented a mercury switch removal program that included removal prior to processing in their on-site shredder and a system for paying other scrap suppliers to remove switches. This program has resulted in a quantifiable reduction in environmental releases of mercury. These two studies confirm that a national mercury switch removal program for end-of-life vehicles will reduce mercury emissions. 15 “Mercury Switch Data Collection Pilot Project.” Prepared by K.L. Woodruff. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. March 24, 2004. Switch removal programs reduce mercury releases to all media. Switch removal reduces mercury releases to air, water, and land when automobiles are crushed and shredded prior to delivery to the minimills. Mercury contamination of auto shred residue (plastics, fabrics, and other unwanted materials in the automobile) is reduced making safer the further management of the material. The switches themselves are isolated and managed in RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities where they are subject to stringent regulatory control. As a result of the mercury switch removal programs, mercury emissions are reduced at all facilities which use the scrap as raw material, including not only EAFs but integrated iron and steel plants and iron and steel foundries. Finally, mercury emissions are reduced from scrap that is exported and melted in furnaces in other countries. *The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP).* 16 A significant step forward in reducing mercury emissions was made on August 11, 2006 when a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU)was signed by representatives of the steel industry, automobile makers, scrap recyclers, environmental groups, State and local agencies, and EPA. 17 The MOU established the NVMSRP, and this program has been implemented and is already removing and recovering mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles before the metallic scrap is recycled at EAFs (and other steel-producing entities). 16 This section describes the national switch recovery program in detail. As discussed in the following sections of this preamble, the proposed rule does not codify these details as part of the proposed standard for mercury emissions. The proposed rule requires the owner or operator to:

(1)Certify they are participants in the national program and that scrap is purchased only from scrap providers participating in such a national program,

(2)maintain records documenting such participation, and

(3)submit semiannual reports if there are any deviations from the requirements. However, the proposed rule also allows an owner or operator to comply with the proposed rule if they can demonstrate that they are participating in a program that is equivalent to the national program and is of demonstrably equal effectiveness. 17 Additional details and the signed Memorandum of Understanding can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm.* The NVMSRP is the result of a two-year collaborative effort involving EPA, the End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation (ELVS), 18 the American Iron and Steel Institute, the Steel Manufacturers Association, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, the Automotive Recyclers Association, Environmental Defense, the Ecology Center (Ann Arbor), and representatives of the Environmental Council of the States. The goal of the NVMSRP is to significantly reduce air emissions of mercury from steelmaking facilities that utilize auto shred by substantially reducing the number of mercury-containing switches in scrap automobiles before they are crushed and shredded for recycling. This is being accomplished through education and outreach for those removing switches; removal, collection and management of switches; transport of the switches to a qualified retorter that has the permits that allow for managing the switches under RCRA subtitle C; recordkeeping and accountability of mercury recovery; scrap selection and corroboration; and review and improvement of the NVMSRP. The vehicle manufacturers and steelmakers have created a three-year, $4 million dollar implementation fund in support of the program. The fund will support the implementation of the NMSRP through incentive payments to those entities recovering (i.e. pulling) the switches. Performance will be assessed on a regular basis by all of the participating parties. 18 ELVS is a non-profit corporation established by several motor vehicle manufacturers who are listed at *http://www.elvsolutions.org/about.htm.* Finally, the MOU contains a provision providing that the agreement may terminate with the consent of the parties based on the phase out of automobiles containing mercury switches. A potential termination date mentioned in the MOU is December 31, 2017, a date when it is projected that 90 percent of vehicles containing mercury switches will be retired. 19 EPA believes that any issues raised by this potential “sunset” provision are best addressed when EPA reexamines the MACT standard pursuant to section 112(d)(6) (which must occur no later than 2015). At that time, there will be robust information available as to switch removal rates and rate of fleet retirement. 19 The MOU states “The NVMSRP will be implemented until December 31, 2017 based on estimates that 90% of the vehicles containing mercury switches would be retired by that time. If, before that date, based on Program data and other information, the Parties or their designees determine that the number of remaining Mercury Switches no longer constitutes a significant source of mercury, they may determine that the program should end. In such a case, the Parties may terminate this MOU through written notice to all signatories and Participants. If the Parties or their designees determine that the number of mercury switches is still significant after that date, they may extend the Program. If the Program is extended, the Parties and U.S. EPA may continue this MOU through written mutual consent of all parties and U.S. EPA.” The NVMSRP was designed to harmonize with existing State programs and to be implemented State-by-State by the participants, in consultation with appropriate State agencies, in the remaining States to form a coordinated national program. The NVMSRP has shown success in just a few months following the MOU. As of July 9, 2007, programs were operational in 45 States, and 5,633 participants have collected more than 575,841 mercury switches with 1,267 pounds of mercury. Programs are expected to be implemented in all of the remaining States in 2007. *Proposed MACT floor determination.* More than 12 percent of the EAF steelmaking facilities are participants in this national program and have been participants in previous State and local programs. We believe that these operations pursuant to the national program represent the best performers and best performance for mercury—the chief source of mercury in emissions is being removed from feedstock—so that the MACT floor for new and existing EAF steelmaking facilities is for the owner or operator to operate pursuant to such a program; i.e., to obtain scrap only from scrap providers that are first removing mercury switches pursuant to the national program or an equivalent program of demonstrably equal effectiveness. 20 We are also proposing that a switch removal program is the MACT floor for new sources because the best-controlled similar source is among those that prevent mercury switches from entering with the scrap. 20 We estimate that the mercury switch removal program will reduce mercury emissions to below 90 mg Hg/ton of steel produced (based on two State pilot program studies showing approximately 50 percent reduction from switch removal and average baseline mercury emissions of 180 mg Hg/ton), which results in an estimated reduction of 5 tpy of mercury. For perspective, 90 mg/ton of steel corresponds to a trace mercury level of 0.1 ppm in the steel scrap or the equivalent of about one mercury switch (one gram or 1,000 mg of mercury) per 10 tons of steel scrap (about one switch per ten end-of-life vehicles at one ton of steel per vehicle). In contrast, we estimate that the MACT floor based on our limited mercury emissions test data, which comes from a time when switch removal agreements were not in place, would be 650 mg Hg/ton of steel. Additional details are provided in “Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. We examined the features of the NVMSRP and other switch removal programs to identify those features that would be the necessary components of a national emission standard to ensure that the program would be effective at reducing mercury emissions. These features include assurance that each facility is participating in a switch removal program that has been approved by the Administrator, a program goal for the percent of switches removed (80 percent), a system that accounts for the number of switches (or quantity of mercury) removed and the number of vehicle bodies processed, a mechanism to ensure the switches are properly disposed of or recycled, and an outreach program that informs dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance for removal. The national program has these features, and we are proposing that these features represent the MACT floor for mercury for new and existing sources because this is the mercury control approach that is being used by the best-performing sources. The national program also has a mechanism to measure performance because the number of switches and amount of mercury recovered is reported by State, and from an estimate of the number of vehicles processed, the progress toward the goal of 80 percent removal can be determined. The MOU also includes ongoing measures to track and measure progress. For example, the parties will assess development and implementation of State plans and identification and participation of program participants at three-month intervals for the first year following the effective date of the MOU. At six-month intervals thereafter, the parties will collectively review by State the status of implementation and participation in the program and make adjustments as necessary. The indicators to be reviewed will include the status of plans for 50-State implementation, number of States where the program has been initiated, the status of Web-based information on the NVMSRP, the status of identification of dismantlers and dismantler participation in all States (starting with those States targeted for initial implementation), and the status of the mercury recovery database and rate of information collection. The parties to the MOU expect that in the first three years of the program, capture rates will be ramping up due to the realities of program implementation and will not fully achieve the 80 to 90 percent switch recovery rate goal. It is expected that a minimum of four million mercury switches will be recovered during the first three years of the program in addition to the mercury being recovered by existing State programs. The parties agreed to make every effort to exceed this amount through aggressive implementation of the responsibilities detailed in this agreement. One year following the effective date of the MOU and each year thereafter, the parties or their designees and EPA agreed to meet to review the effectiveness of the program at the State level based upon recovery and capture rates. The parties to the agreement agreed to use the results to improve the performance of the program and to explore implementation of a range of options in that effort. Two and one-half years from the inception of the program, the parties agreed to meet and review overall program effectiveness and performance. This review will include discussion of the number of switches that have been collected and what factors have contributed to program effectiveness. A key element of measuring the success of the program is maintaining a database of participants that has detailed contact information, documentation showing when the participant joined the program (or started submitting mercury switches), records of all submissions by the participant including date, number of mercury switches, and confirmation that the participant has submitted mercury switches as expected. Another important element is aggregated information to be updated on a quarterly basis, including progress reports, summaries of the number of program participants by State, individual program participants, and State and national recovery totals. The program is also estimating the number of motor vehicles recycled. The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during the first year of the program, every six months in the second and third year of the program, and annually thereafter. The reports prepared by ELVS will include the total number of dismantlers or other potential participants identified; the total number of dismantlers or others contacted; and the total number of dismantlers or others participating. The annual report will include the total mercury (in pounds) and number of mercury switches recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury, number of mercury switches, and an estimated national capture rate, with information organized by State, compared with the expected range of mercury switch retirement rates for each State; and the total number and identity of dismantlers or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal from the program. Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP to comply with this proposed standard would have to assume all of the responsibilities for steelmakers as described in the MOU and take steps consistent with the NVMSRP to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles. Participating steelmakers were to initiate the following steps when the NVMSRP went into effect: • Issue a statement that the individual steel company is participating in the NVMSRP. • Acting independently, develop a plan demonstrating the manner through which it is participating in the NVMSRP. The plan should include facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for each facility. • Provide in the plan documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers the need to promote the NVMSRP with suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain. The steel mill should be able to provide examples of materials that it uses for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection protocols. • Strongly encourage their suppliers and others in the scrap supply chain to support and participate in the NVMSRP. • Take steps to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap, which includes notifying suppliers that the steelmaker, acting independently pursuant to the NVMSRP, intends to use in their operations, to the maximum extent possible, scrap from vehicles which do not contain mercury switches or from which mercury switches have been removed and to adapt their respective purchasing practices to that end. • Use the ELVS database or other appropriate means to demonstrate that suppliers (spot suppliers and those under continuous contracts) are participating as anticipated in the NVMSRP and periodically re-affirm their commitment to provide only reduced-mercury automobile scrap. Steelmakers will conduct occasional spot checks, site visits or other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are aware of the need and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury in automobile scrap. • Cooperate with ELVS in the development of education, training materials, and outreach where appropriate. • Work with the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries to assure that any scrap work practice standards or other programs that may be implemented in accordance with the NVMSRP take into account market and technological factors and do not create unreasonable or unworkable certification requirements for scrap processors. We propose that the Administrator can evaluate the success of the program at any time, identify States where improvements might be needed, recommend options for improving the program in a particular State, and if necessary, disapprove the program as implemented in a State from being used to demonstrate compliance with this proposed rule based on an assessment of this performance. The evaluation would be based on progress reports submitted to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered. The Administrator will assess the information with respect to the program's goal for percent switch recovery and trends in recovery rates. Although the national program would be an EPA-approved program for the purpose of complying with the proposed MACT standard, other State, local, or facility-specific programs could qualify as a compliance option on a case-by-case basis if they met the same criteria. Consequently, we also are proposing as the MACT floor participation in these other programs after satisfying criteria based on the national program, i.e., showing that these other programs would assure the same level of mercury control that the national program utilized by the best existing performers achieves, that would be used by the Administrator to determine if other switch removal programs could be used to demonstrate compliance. For example, we are proposing that a facility could prepare and operate pursuant to a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury switches and establish scrap specifications for the removal of mercury switches to achieve the MACT level of control (i.e., control as effective as the national plan). The plan would be submitted to the Administrator for approval and would demonstrate how the EAF steelmaking facility will comply with the following specific requirements:

(2)provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that motor vehicle scrap provided to the EAF meets the scrap specifications,

(3)provisions for periodic inspection, site visits, or other means of corroboration for the EAF to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap,

(4)a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches,

(5)provisions for taking corrective actions if needed, and

(6)requiring each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and the basis for the estimate. The Administrator would be able to request documentation or additional information and change the approval status of the plan at any time based on a review of progress toward meeting the switch removal goal and other factors. We developed an equivalent compliance option (also based on pollution prevention) for steelmakers who do not purchase motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury switches. The compliance option would require the facility to certify that the only materials from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy, such as chromium in certain exhaust systems, and that the type of scrap is not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches. *Proposed beyond-the-floor determination.* As a beyond-the-floor option, we considered the upstream removal of mercury-containing components other than mercury switches. There is no practical or reasonable way to remove trace amounts of mercury entering with raw materials (such as fluxing agents and alloys) other than scrap. Although there are other components in automobile scrap containing small amounts of mercury (see the earlier discussion above), pilot studies by various States have found that most of the mercury is contributed by the mercury switches, which take only a few minutes to locate and remove. (See the reports of switch removal studies in Maine, New Jersey, and Michigan in the rulemaking docket.) Other mercury-containing components contribute less mercury, and they are more difficult to locate, identify, and remove. For example, the mercury switch study performed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection found that convenience light switches could be located and removed in less than one minute. However, the time to remove and locate switches in anti-lock braking systems

(ABS)required 7 to 8 minutes to locate, remove the rear seat, unbolt the unit, and remove it. In some cases, no ABS mercury switches were found. Some vehicles had to be raised on lifts, which required 10 to 15 minutes to locate and remove the ABS switch. In other cases, the ABS mercury bullet could not be removed separately because it was encased in a plastic resin material. Since the removal of these other mercury-containing components is costly and not practical in many cases, we have initially determined that the removal of these other mercury-containing components is not justified as a beyond-the-floor standard. However, we propose to encourage their removal by crediting all documented and verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in ABS systems, security systems, active ride control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the 80 percent goal. We also examined the feasibility and cost of an add-on control device for mercury and continuous emissions monitoring as a beyond-the-floor option for mercury for existing and new sources. Activated carbon injection has been used on other somewhat similar processes (i.e., similar with respect to temperature and volumetric flow rate); however, it has never been used at EAF facilities, and thus is not a demonstrated mercury control technology for EAF facilities. The nationwide cost of activated carbon injection and monitoring on EAFs is estimated as $100 million/yr. The mercury reductions are estimated as about 5 tpy after implementation of the national mercury switch recovery program. Assuming that activated carbon injection could be applied to EAFs and would reduce the remaining mercury emissions by 90 percent (4.5 tpy), the cost effectiveness would be $22 million per ton of mercury. This cost does not include the further high cost of waste treatment and disposal noted in the next paragraph. We also considered other factors:

(1)The EAF batch process has highly variable concentrations of mercury in the exhaust gases (which results in a great deal of uncertainty with respect to cost, design, and efficiency of an add-on control system),

(2)carbon injection could result in landfilling large quantities of hazardous EAF dust (since the carbon injection residue is commingled with other baghouse dust) that is currently recycled to recover its zinc value (see *American Petroleum Inst.* v. *EPA,* 906 F. 2d 729, 734, 740-41 (D.C. Cir. 1990) and 53 FR 11752-11753, August 17, 1988) because the mercury would either be re-emitted at the zinc smelter (in which case there would effectively be no further reduction of mercury emissions) or the baghouse dust which is otherwise recyclable would have to be treated and disposed in a RCRA subtitle C landfill (a non-air adverse environmental impact we are required to consider under section 112(d)(2)) at a significant cost, and

(3)the operation of a carbon injection (or any type of mercury emissions control device) would result in increased energy consumption (another adverse impact we are required to consider under section 112(d)(2)). Based on the fact that activated carbon injection is not a demonstrated mercury control technology for EAF facilities, the uncertainty in design and performance of the add-on controls and hence of the actual mercury emission reductions for EAF facilities, the cost impacts per ton of emission reduction, and the adverse energy and solid waste impacts, we determined that control beyond the floor is not warranted for mercury. Therefore, we are proposing that the removal of mercury switches from the scrap before it is melted in the EAF represents MACT for mercury for new and existing EAF facilities. 2. Proposed GACT Standards for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury *Background.* EAF steelmaking facilities were listed under CAA section 112(c)(3) for emissions of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel (67 FR 43112). As just explained in section IV.D.2 of this preamble, we are proposing a MACT standard for mercury based on its listing under CAA section 112(c)(6). For metal HAP other than mercury, we decided that it is not practical to establish individual standards for each specific type of metallic HAP that could be present in the emissions (e.g., separate standards for manganese emissions, lead emissions, and so forth for each of the metals listed as HAP that may be present) because the types and quantities of metal HAP can vary widely in the scrap. When released, each of the metallic HAP compounds other than mercury behaves as PM. The control technologies used for the control of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of performance for these metallic HAP emissions, i.e., when PM is captured, HAP metals are captured non-preferentially as part of the PM. Therefore, emission standards requiring control of PM will also achieve comparable control of metallic HAP emissions. Establishing separate standards for each individual type of metallic HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex compliance and monitoring requirements and achieve no HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the surrogate pollutant approach based on capture and control of PM. As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards representing GACT for the Urban HAP metals other than mercury. EPA believes that the statute allows the agency to elect to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c) based on GACT without further explanation. The statute simply 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. See 72 FR 38880 (July 16, 2007). We reviewed the control technologies and management practices used by the existing EAF steelmaking facilities, and we found that all of the plants are well controlled for PM emissions and are subject to emissions limits for PM. All plants have capture systems that collect emissions from charging, melting, tapping and ladle metallurgy and route the collected gases to a PM control device. All plants have title V permits because they are major sources for criteria pollutants (hence the standards proposed today would be implemented via title V permits). In addition, all plants are subject to the CAM requirements in 40 CFR part 64. There are a wide variety of capture systems and types of control devices that EAFs employ to achieve control of PM, and all of these systems are effective and generally available. For example, capture systems include direct-shell evacuation, canopy hoods, close-fitting hoods, side draft hoods, tapping hoods, partial enclosures, total enclosures, scavenger duct systems, building evacuation, or a combination. Control devices include many different types of baghouses (positive pressure, negative pressure, reverse air, shaker, and pulse jet) and venturi scrubbers. We concluded from our technology review that the generally available control technologies and management practices for PM emissions, and thus for emissions of HAP metals other than mercury, consist of the installation, operation, and maintenance of capture and control systems for PM emissions from charging, melting, tapping, and ladle metallurgy. Compliance assurance monitoring under 40 CFR part 64 is required for EAF facilities to ensure that the capture and control systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained on a continuing basis. *Subcategories.* As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions and control technologies 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 * * *”. We found that there is a segment of the EAF steelmaking industry that is comprised of small facilities producing specialty and stainless steel. These facilities produce less than 150,000 tpy of steel per plant, and they represent 0.5 percent of the national steelmaking capacity and contribute only 0.5 percent of the HAP emissions. 21 The EAF process at these small producers is characterized by small furnaces with low volume of emissions, longer cycle times, and intermittent rather than continuous operation. In addition, they use high quality scrap that must meet specifications much more stringent than those applied to scrap for carbon steel producers. The HAP metals emitted from these facilities are primarily chromium and nickel, whereas carbon steel producers emit primarily manganese and lead. Consequently, we are proposing to develop GACT standards for two subcategories of EAF steelmaking: one for all carbon steel and large stainless and specialty steel producers and one for small stainless and specialty steel producers (i.e., less than 150,000 tpy). 21 Additional details on the characteristics of the small specialty steel plants can be found in the rulemaking docket. *Proposed GACT determination for carbon steel and large specialty steel producers.* We examined emission limits in title V permits to determine if GACT for the carbon steel and large specialty steel producers could be expressed in terms of PM emission limits for control devices and opacity limits for fugitive emissions from the melt shop. The emission and opacity limits vary quite widely depending on whether the facility is in a non-attainment area for PM; whether the EAF had recently been constructed, modified, or reconstructed; EAF age; design of the capture and control system; and other factors. (Details on the permit information are provided in the rulemaking docket in the questionnaire responses for each company that was surveyed.) The most commonly-applied emissions and opacity limits are those in the new source performance standard

(NSPS)in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, which applies to EAFs constructed after August 7, 1983. Approximately 80 of the 91 EAF steelmaking area source facilities that we have identified are subject to the NSPS. These limits are 0.0052 gr/dscf for the control device and a melt shop opacity limit of 6 percent (6-minute average) for fugitive emissions. We gathered additional information on the 10 older EAFs in the carbon steel and large specialty steel subcategory that are not subject to the NSPS and found that four facilities are currently meeting the NSPS limits and six facilities are not meeting the NSPS opacity limit for fugitive emissions. We found that the facilities not meeting the NSPS opacity limit would require either new or extensively upgraded capture and control equipment to achieve the level of control required for the newer facilities subject to the NSPS. We confirmed that these facilities would need higher evacuation rates for their capture systems and new or expanded baghouse capacity. We obtained cost estimates from the plants, and we performed our own independent estimates of the cost to upgrade capture and control systems. The total nationwide capital cost to upgrade to meet the NSPS limit for opacity was estimated as $26 to $34 million. 22 The total annualized cost was estimated as $4.9 to $6.2 million per year nationwide. PM emissions would be reduced by 540 tpy, and HAP metals other than mercury would be reduced by 34 tpy. The average cost effectiveness per plant ranged from $2,000 to $14,000 per ton of PM with an overall cost effectiveness of $10,000 per ton of PM. For metal HAP other than mercury, the average cost effectiveness per plant ranged from $40,000 to $250,000 per ton with an overall cost effectiveness of $160,000 per ton of HAP. The cost effectiveness for PM is well within the range that EPA has considered acceptable for other sources, such as PM standards for mobile sources. For example, the cost effectiveness of mobile source programs adopting (quite aggressive) PM controls has ranged from $2,390 per ton of PM to $31,530 per ton of PM with estimates for three mobile source programs in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 per ton of PM (69 FR 39133, June 29, 2004). 23 22 The capital cost per plant ranged from $1.5 million to $12 million, and the total annualized cost per plant ranged from $140,000 to $2.8 million per year. All estimates of impacts (e.g., costs and emission reductions) are documented in the rulemaking docket. 23 We note that, although section 112(d) only authorizes control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and particulate matter

(PM)is not itself a HAP but a surrogate for HAP metals, Congress expected the maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)program to result in significant emissions reductions of criteria air pollutants (of which PM is one), and viewed this as an important benefit of the MACT (and residual risk) provisions. See 5 Legislative History at 8512 (Senate Committee Report) (“[w]hen establishing technology-based standards under this subsection, the Administrator may consider the benefits which result from control of air pollutants that are not listed but the emissions of which are, nevertheless, reduced by control technologies or practices necessary to meet the prescribed limitation”) Our economic analysis indicated the facilities are owned and operated by large corporations, and all but one of these corporations operate multiple plants with EAFs. We believe that the costs of upgrades to meet the NSPS level of control for opacity are economical and would not pose adverse economic impacts on the companies. After considering the economic impacts, the reasonable costs and cost effectiveness for control of PM and HAP, and the emissions reductions that would be obtained, we have determined initially that an opacity limit of 6 percent represented the GACT level of control for this subcategory of carbon steel and large stainless and specialty steel producers. We acknowledge that there is uncertainty in our estimates of costs, emission reductions, and cost effectiveness. The estimates of costs and cost effectiveness for the older non-NSPS plants could be higher than we have initially estimated, and if that is the case and these costs are disproportionately different from those of other sources, it might be appropriate to consider a separate subcategory based on the technical and economic feasibility (i.e., facilities constructed prior to 1983 may need to add or alter existing infrastructure, upgrade their hooding, close vents, install partitions, or re-route crane ways) of retrofitting facilities based on their age. 24 If subcategorization on this basis is appropriate, we believe that GACT for these older facilities would achieve an opacity limit of 6 percent except for 20 percent opacity during charging and tapping. This alternative standard would yield an improvement in existing performance at reasonable cost. We request comment, along with supporting documentation, on our estimates of cost and cost effectiveness and the possibility of creating a separate subcategory for older facilities and whether these costs are disproportionately different from those of other industry sources. Supporting documentation must be provided in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data. 24 See *Texas Oil and Gas Ass'n* v. *EPA* , 161 F.3d 923, 934 (5th Cir. 1998) (age as subcategorization factor under Clean Water Act); *American Iron and Steel Inst.* v. *EPA* , 568 F. 2d 244, 299 (3rd Cir. 1977) (same). Here, the year 1983 is critical since EPA promulgated new source performance standards

(NSPS)for the electric arc furnace

(EAF)source category in that year. Most of the industry is subject to these standards, but 10 EAFs are not, raising the question of whether these sources should be considered as a separate subcategory for purposes of determining generally available control technology (GACT). See Cf. *American Iron and Steel Inst.* v. *EPA* , 526 F. 2d 1046, 1048 (3rd Cir. 1975) (age of source may bear on technical and economic feasibility of retrofitting). We also evaluated the generally available controls and emission limits applied to emissions from control devices on EAFs and ladle metallurgy operations. A total of 80 plants are subject to and achieve the NSPS PM limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf, and the other 10 plants not subject to the NSPS have installed baghouses that can achieve the limit. Consequently, we are also proposing that the PM limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf is GACT for control devices applied to EAFs and ladle metallurgy operations. We also considered whether additional control and emission reductions might be generally available beyond those achieved by the NSPS. The NSPS opacity limit of 6 percent is one of the most stringent Federal limits in effect for fugitive emissions and is well below the most commonly applied limit of 20 percent for fugitive emissions in State regulations. The NSPS opacity limit was based on the best-performing plants in terms of their ability to capture and control fugitive emissions. A limit more stringent than 6 percent opacity for fugitive emissions has not been applied to EAFs or other similar processes, and any limit more stringent would approach an infeasible standard of no visible emissions. Consequently, we concluded that an opacity limit of 6 percent is GACT for fugitive emissions from EAF operations. We also considered whether a PM limit more stringent than the NSPS limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf might be achieved by all facilities using the technology described above. Although the NSPS is 20 years old, it was based on the best technology and best-performing sources at that time. The NSPS level of control is achieved by a well-designed and properly-operated baghouse with a low air-to-cloth ratio that is characteristic of baghouses in use today, and generally reflected testing of the baghouses when performing at their optimum. For example, essentially the same level of PM control (a limit of 0.005 gr/dscf) was promulgated as the MACT standard for EAFs and induction furnaces at iron and steel foundries, which melt similar scrap and have similar operating characteristics (69 FR 21924, April 22, 2004). An upgrade of existing baghouses (e.g., increasing bag filtering area to lower the air-to-cloth ratio) would result in expensive retrofit costs for a very marginal improvement in PM control. Consequently, we are proposing that the NSPS PM limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf is GACT for control devices applied to EAFs and ladle metallurgy. *Proposed GACT determination for small stainless and specialty steel producers.* We also examined the control technologies used by the small stainless and specialty steel producers with a production of less than 150,000 tpy. We identified five plants in this subcategory, and all of these plants apply capture systems for emissions from charging, melting, tapping, and ladle metallurgy (i.e., the direct, non-fugitive PM emissions) and vent the captured emissions to a PM control device. Most plants use baghouses as the PM control device and meet the NSPS limit; however, one plant uses a venturi scrubber as the control device and meets a PM emission level of 0.8 lb/ton of steel produced. We performed an analysis of costs and cost effectiveness to determine if the GACT level of emission control for this subcategory should be represented by the performance of a baghouse at the NSPS level of control, the level achieved by the venturi scrubber, or some other level. The estimated capital cost to replace the venturi scrubber with a baghouse ranged from $4 to $14 million (depending on retrofit assumptions and their costs) with a total annualized cost of $0.7 to $2 million per year. PM emissions would be reduced by 27 tpy, and emissions of HAP metals other than mercury would be reduced by 4.6 tpy. The estimated cost effectiveness was $52,000 per ton of PM and $300,000 per ton of HAP. We believe that the costs and cost effectiveness are unacceptably high and that the emission reductions achieved would be low (resulting in poor cost effectiveness (which is certainly higher than those considered acceptable in the context just discussed of fugitive emission control for EAFs). We concluded that the NSPS level of PM control (0.0052 gr/dscf) does not represent GACT for this subcategory. Consequently, we reviewed the emission control performance of the plant with the venturi scrubber. The results of four tests for PM emissions ranged from 0.4 to 0.7 lb/ton of steel with an average of 0.5 lb/ton and a standard deviation of 0.11 lb/ton. The 99th percentile of performance (the average plus 2.33 standard deviations) is 0.8 lb/ton. (The 99th percentile is the level of emission control that the plant can achieve at least 99 percent of the time, i.e., 99 percent of the test results would be below this level.) See *National Wildlife Federation* v. *EPA* , 286 F.3d 554, 572 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of adopting 99th percentile confidence level); *Chemical Mfr's. Ass'n* v. *EPA* , 870 F.2d, 229 (5th Cir.) (same). We are proposing a PM emission limit of 0.8 lb/ton of steel produced for this source category of small stainless and specialty steel producers based on the 99th percentile of emission control performance demonstrated by the venturi scrubber. We also examined the control of fugitive emissions at the small stainless and specialty steel producers. All of the plants have effective capture and control systems for fugitive emissions. Although two plants are not subject to the NSPS opacity limit of 6 percent for fugitive emissions, these plants and all other plants in the subcategory can meet the NSPS limit. Consequently, we have initially determined that the NSPS limit of 6 percent for fugitive emissions from the melt shop represented GACT. As we discussed above, the NSPS opacity limit of 6 percent is one of the most stringent limits in effect for fugitive emissions and is well below the most commonly applied limit of 20 percent for fugitive emissions in State regulations. The NSPS opacity limit was based on the best performing plants in terms of their ability to capture and control fugitive emissions. Consequently, we initially concluded that an opacity limit more stringent than 6 percent for this subcategory is not warranted and would not represent GACT. *Proposed compliance monitoring.* We are proposing compliance assurance monitoring as required by 40 CFR part 64 for all EAF steelmaking facilities. This proposal is based on a review of the compliance monitoring procedures that are currently in place at EAF facilities and are generally available. All EAF facilities have title V permits and are subject to the CAM requirements. The CAM rule requires the owner or operator to maintain records of monitoring data, monitor performance data, corrective actions taken, any written QIP, any activities undertaken to implement a QIP, and other supporting information required by the part 64 rule (such as data used to document the adequacy of monitoring, or records of monitoring maintenance or corrective actions). The general reporting requirements of part 64 requires the owner or operator to submit monitoring reports to the permitting authority in accordance with the requirements for facilities with title V operating permits, which include a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and annual compliance certifications. The reporting requirements under part 64 require that the 6-month monitoring report include:

(1)Summary information on the number, duration and cause (including unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, as applicable, and the corrective actions taken;

(3)a description of the actions taken to implement a QIP during the reporting period. Upon completion of a QIP, the owner or operator must include in the next summary report documentation that the implementation of the plan has been completed and reduced the likelihood of similar levels of excursions or exceedances occurring. We are proposing to adopt the extensive compliance assurance monitoring requirements in part 64 in this proposed NESHAP for EAF steelmaking facilities. 3. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap to Control HAP Other Than Mercury In addition to the standards for PM, EPA is proposing further measures to minimize the amount of contamination in scrap to EAFs. Our studies of industry practices indicate that many facilities have scrap specifications and procedures to minimize contaminants in the scrap. For example, emissions of the Urban HAP lead are reduced by ensuring that lead components, such as wheel weights, batteries, and cables, are removed before the scrap is processed and melted (loosely analogous to the mercury switch program discussed for mercury in that the HAP is removed from the scrap before it reaches the EAF). Although EAFs were not listed for emissions of organic Urban HAP, it is also common industry practice to limit the amount of plastics and organic liquids in the scrap, which reduces the emissions of organic HAP. Unlike mercury, bulky items such as batteries and cables, as well as dripping liquids, can often be visually detected in a scrap load. Consequently, we are proposing pollution prevention measures as GACT for lead and organic HAP. These pollution prevention measures reduce emissions beyond those achieved by the emission controls that are already in place. For example, all EAFs have PM control devices, which also control lead emissions; however, preventing lead from entering the EAF provides additional reductions even with PM controls. Similarly, some organic HAP are destroyed at the high temperatures used to melt scrap, but preventing plastics and organic liquids from entering with the scrap provides reductions beyond that achieved by this thermal destruction. Our survey of EAF plants indicated that all of the plants have specifications for their scrap, including measures that reduce HAP emissions by preventing certain materials from entering the EAF with the scrap. For example, some specify no non-ferrous metals, no non-metallic materials, no free-flowing oil, etc. Excluding organic materials (such as plastics and oil) and metals such as lead will reduce HAP emissions, and in the case of organics, also reduce the formation of combustion-product organic HAP at the high operating temperatures of the EAF. It is difficult to quantify specific emissions reductions achieved by these scrap management programs. First, nearly all plants implement some sort of formal or informal scrap management program (to maintain product quality), so it is difficult to assess what the baseline emissions might be without one. Second, these scrap management programs are used in conjunction with other air emissions control technologies to reduce emissions from the EAF. The emissions reductions specifically attributable to the scrap management program are impossible to separate out. Nonetheless, it is clear that any reduction in HAP content or HAP precursors entering the EAF will reduce the emissions of HAP metals and organics from the EAF. While a scrap management program is expected to reduce HAP emissions, it cannot be expected to eliminate all HAP elements or precursors in the scrap. First, scrap loads are generally large and difficult to inspect. A load of scrap may contain thousands of different pieces, and some scrap may be shredded and bundled. Visual inspections are only able to identify obvious off-specification materials that are on the top of a load. Second, some of the HAP elements are desirable components in the scrap iron and steel that contribute to the overall chemistry of the product and provide valuable properties in the cast metal (e.g., manganese and chromium.) Third, even undesirable HAP metals cannot be eliminated from the cast iron and steel as they are trace components in the scrap iron and steel that cannot be separated. For example, all cast iron contains trace amounts of lead (typically 0.5 to 4 percent). As such, a load of scrap meeting a “no lead” scrap specification does not mean that the scrap is lead-free—only that the scrap is free of lead components (e.g., batteries or wheel weights). We have determined that the management practice of limiting the amount of organic impurities and lead in the scrap represents GACT (along with the emission controls described in the previous section of this preamble) because they are in widespread use, there is little additional cost for all plants to implement them (most already have), and there is no doubt that preventing these materials from entering the EAF will reduce emissions of the HAP which would otherwise be charged to the furnace. (A summary of the proposed scrap management practices is provided in section IV.C.4 of this preamble.) V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards As proposed, the standards would reduce mercury emissions from EAF by an estimated 5 tons per year

(tpy)and would reduce mercury releases to the environment by 8 tpy. The proposed standards would also reduce emissions of other metallic HAP (primarily manganese with some lead, nickel and chromium) by about 34 tpy. Emissions of PM would be reduced by 540 tpy. The capital cost of the proposed standards is estimated as $26 to $34 million. The total annualized cost of the proposed rule is estimated at $4.9 to $6.2 million/yr, including the annualized cost of capital and the annual operating costs for emission control systems. The additional cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping attributable to the proposed rule, including the preparation of scrap management plans and scrap specifications, is estimated as $122,000 per year. No adverse economic impacts are expected for large or small entities. Secondary impacts would include an increase in the generation of hazardous waste (540 tpy) and an increase in electricity usage (10,400 megawatt-hours per year) from additional fans and fan capacity associated with baghouse installations and upgrades to meet the proposed opacity standard. (All estimates of primary and secondary impacts are documented in the rulemaking docket.) VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule 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. 2277.02. The proposed information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the part 64 CAM rule, which are based on the requirements in the operating permits rule (40 CFR parts 70 and 71). These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule requires all facilities to submit a one-time notification of applicability and notification of compliance status required by the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The notification of compliance status would include compliance certifications for various rule requirements. The general provisions also require preparation of a test plan for performance tests and advance notification of the date the performance test is to be conducted. The proposed requirements for the control of contaminants from scrap require a pollution prevention plan to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids that are charged to the furnace and submit the plan to the Administrator for approval. Facilities must keep the plan onsite and train certain employees in the plan's requirements. Alternatively, the facility must restrict the type of scrap charged to the furnace. For mercury, facilities must prepare a site-specific plan for removal of mercury switches, submit the plan to the Administrator for approval, and submit semiannual progress reports containing information on the mercury switches that have been removed would also be required. Alternatively, facilities must purchase motor vehicle scrap only from suppliers that participate in an approved program for the removal of mercury switches or recover only material for its specialty alloy content that does not contain mercury switches. Facilities would be required to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the selected option. Records of specific information would be required for plants electing to comply with the site-specific plan for mercury; semiannual progress reports would also be required. All area source facilities would be required to conduct performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable PM and opacity limits. Existing facilities would be allowed to certify initial compliance based on the results of a previous performance test that meets the rule requirements. All facilities would be required to monitor capture systems and PM control devices for EAF and ladle metallurgy operations, maintain records, and submit reports according to the part 64 CAM requirements. These reports include deviation reports, semiannual monitoring reports, and annual compliance certifications. Consistent with § 63.6(e) of the general provisions, all plants would be required to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and make an immediate report if a startup, shutdown, or malfunction was not consistent with their plan. Plants also would keep records and make semiannual reports according to the requirements in § 63.10. The annual average monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR) is estimated to total 2,393 labor hours per year at a cost of $121,573. This includes 2.7 responses per year from each of 91 respondents for an average of about 9.7 hours per response. There are no additional capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with the proposed rule. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency'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 techniques, EPA has established a public docket for the proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. Submit any comments related to the ICR for the proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 20, 2007, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 22, 2007. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in the proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (whose parent company has fewer than 1,000 employees for NAICS code 331111;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. We estimate that fewer than 9 EAF steelmaking facilities are owned by small businesses (less than 10 percent of the total facilities). After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Electric arc furnaces and ladle metallurgy operations at all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources are already equipped with capture systems and control devices. We have identified six plants that may have to upgrade the capture and control systems for fugitive emissions at a total capital cost of $26 to $34 million and a total annualized cost of $4.9 to $6.2 million per year. However, none of these plants are owned by small businesses. The only other additional requirements of the proposed NESHAP consist of preparing a scrap selection plan or mercury switch removal plan (if these options are selected) and maintaining records to document compliance with these requirements. The requirements of the part 63 General Provisions would include notifications, records, semiannual reports, and a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The information required in these information collection requirements are very similar to the information collection requirements in 40 CFR parts 64, 70, and 71. The cost of these requirements (about $3,500 per year per facility) would not result in an adverse economic impact on any facility, large or small (i.e., the cost is less than one percent of total revenues, even for small businesses). Although the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. We held meetings with industry trade associations and company representatives to discuss the proposed rule and have included provisions such as the lb/ton limit for small facilities that address their concerns. We have also proposed to include a subcategory based partially on facility size that allows more individualized consideration of EAFs in the proposed subcategory, which include small businesses. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule contains no requirements that apply to such governments and impose no obligations upon them, and the proposed rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local officials, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant,” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(VCS)in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rule involves technical standards. EPA is proposing to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Method 9095B, “Paint Filter Liquids Test,” in “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication SW-846, revision 2 and subsequent revisions, dated November 2004 and in Update IIIB (incorporated by reference in 63.10692—see 40 CFR 63.14); and ASTM D2216-05 and subsequent revisions, “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass”, incorporated by reference approved for § 63.10692. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, 9095B, or ASTM D2216-05. The search and review results are in the docket for these proposed rules. One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable to this proposed rule. The standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is cited in this proposed rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions standards in this proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for this proposed rule. For the methods required or referenced by this proposed rule, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This proposed rule establishes national standards for the area source category. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 12, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart A—[AMENDED] 2. Section 63.14 is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraph (b)(63); b. By revising paragraph (i)(1); and c. By adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv). § 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

(b)* * *

(63)ASTM D2216-05 and subsequent revisions, “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass”, IBR approved for § 63.10692.

(i)* * *

(k)* * *

(1)* * *

(iv)Method 9095B, “Paint Filter Liquids Test,” (revision 2 and subsequent revisions), dated November 2004 and in Update IIIB, IBR approved for § 63.10692. 3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYY to read as follows: Subpart YYYYY—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Applicability and Compliance Dates Sec. 63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.10681 What are my compliance dates? Standards and Compliance Requirements 63.10685 What are the requirements for the control of contaminants from scrap? 63.10686 What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and ladle metallurgy operations? Other Requirements and Information 63.10690 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.10691 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.10692 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYYY Subpart YYYYY—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an electric arc furnace

(EAF)steelmaking facility that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is each EAF steelmaking facility.

(1)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before September 20, 2007.

(2)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after September 20, 2007.

(c)This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

(d)If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart, you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. § 63.10681 What are my compliance dates?

(a)Except as provided in paragraph

(b)of this section, if you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later than 6 months after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(b)If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the opacity limit in § 63.10686 (b)(2) or (c)(2) by no later than 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** if you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that additional time is needed to install or modify emission control equipment.

(c)If you start up a new affected source on or before the date of date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later than the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(d)If you start up a new affected source after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected source. Standards and Compliance Requirements § 63.10685 What are the requirements for the control of contaminants from scrap?

(a)*Chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids.* For metallic scrap utilized in the EAF at your facility, you must comply with the requirements in either paragraph (a)(1) or

(2)of this section. You may have certain scrap at your facility subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and other scrap subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section provided the scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.

(1)*Pollution prevention plan.* For the production of steel other than leaded steel, you must prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids that is charged to the furnace. For the production of leaded steel, you must prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan for scrap selection and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics and free organic liquids in the scrap that is charged to the furnace. The requirements for a pollution prevention plan do not apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags or other internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace. You must submit the scrap pollution prevention plan to the Administrator for approval. You must keep a copy of the plan onsite, and you must provide training on the plan's requirements to all plant personnel with materials acquisition or inspection duties. Each plan must include the information in paragraphs (a)(1)

(i)through

(iii)of this section:

(i)Specifications that scrap materials must be depleted (to the extent practicable) of undrained used oil filters, chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids at the time of charging to the furnace.

(ii)A requirement in your scrap specifications for removal (to the extent practicable) of lead-containing components (such as batteries, battery cables, and wheel weights) from the scrap according to standard industry practice, except for scrap used to produce leaded steel.

(iii)Procedures for determining if the requirements and specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are met (such as visual inspection or periodic audits of scrap providers) and procedures for taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not within specifications.

(iv)The requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags or other internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace.

(2)*Restricted metallic scrap.* For the production of steel other than leaded steel, you must not charge to a furnace metallic scrap that contains scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers or capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls, lead-containing components, chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. For the production of leaded steel, you must not charge to the furnace metallic scrap that contains scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers or capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. This restriction does not apply to any post-consumer engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily turnings that are processed or cleaned to the extent practicable such that the materials do not include lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. This restriction does not apply to motor vehicle scrap that is charged to recover the chromium or nickel content if you meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(b)*Mercury requirements.* For each scrap provider, contract, or shipment, you must procure all motor vehicle scrap pursuant to one of the compliance options in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or

(3)of this section. You may have one scrap provider, contract, or shipment subject to one compliance option and others subject to another option.

(1)*Site-specific plan for mercury switches.* You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through

(v)of this section.

(i)You must include a requirement in your scrap specifications for removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap.

(ii)You must prepare and operate according to a plan demonstrating how your facility will implement the scrap specification in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for removal of mercury switches. You must submit the plan to the Administrator for approval. The Administrator may change the approval status of the plan upon 90-days written notice based upon the semiannual compliance report or other information. The plan must include:

(A)A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper management of the mercury switches removed from that scrap as required under the rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)(40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268);

(B)Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meet the scrap specification;

(C)Provisions for periodic inspection, site visits, or other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap and that the mercury switches removed are being properly managed, including the minimum frequency such means of corroboration will be implemented; and

(D)Provisions for taking corrective actions ( *i.e.* , actions resulting in scrap providers removing a higher percentage of mercury switches or other mercury-containing components) if needed, based on the results of procedures implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section).

(iii)You must require each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle scrap sent to your facility during the previous year and the basis for the estimate. The Administrator may request documentation or additional information at any time.

(iv)You must establish a goal for each scrap provider to remove at least 80 percent of the mercury switches. Although a site-specific plan approved under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may require only the removal of convenience light switch mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the 80 percent goal.

(v)For each scrap provider, you must submit semiannual progress reports to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches removed, and certification that the removed mercury switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise properly managed pursuant to RCRA subtitle C regulations referenced in paragraph (b)(1)(A) of this section. The Administrator may change the approval status of a site-specific plan following 90-days notice based on the progress reports or other information.

(2)*Option for approved mercury programs.* You must certify in your notification of compliance status that you participate in and purchase motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through

(iii)of this section. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program is an EPA-approved program under paragraph (b)(2) of this section unless and until the Administrator disapproves the program (in part or in whole) under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.

(i)The program includes outreach that informs the dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance for removing mercury switches;

(ii)The program has a goal for each scrap provider which is a party to the agreement to remove at least 80 percent of mercury switches from the motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider processes. Although a program approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this section may require only the removal of convenience light switch mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the 80 percent goal; and

(iii)The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at facilities with permits as required under the rules implementing subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The progress reports must be based on a database that includes data for each program participant; however, data may be aggregated at the State level for progress reports that will be publicly available. The Administrator may change the approval status of a program or portion of a program ( *e.g.* , at the State level) following 90-days notice based on the progress reports or on other information.

(3)*Option for specialty metal scrap.* You must certify in your notification of compliance status that the only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy (including, but not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys) content (such as certain exhaust systems) and, based on the nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, that the type of scrap is not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.

(c)*Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.*

(1)In addition to the records required by § 63.10, you must keep records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for your pollution prevention plan in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and/or for the use of only restricted scrap in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and for mercury in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, including any compliance options in paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section.

(1)If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan for mercury under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must:

(i)Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered; and

(ii)Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a certification that you have conducted inspections, site visits, or taken other means of corroboration as required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. You may include this information in the semiannual compliance reports required under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(2)If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in an approved mercury switch removal program.

(3)You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator for the control of contaminants from scrap according to the requirements in § 63.10(e). The report must clearly identify any deviation from the requirements in paragraphs

(a)and

(b)of this section and the corrective action taken. You must identify which compliance option in paragraph

(b)of this section applies to each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. § 63.10686 What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and ladle metallurgy operations?

(a)You must install, operate, and maintain a capture system that collects the gases and fumes from each EAF (including charging, melting, and tapping operations) and ladle metallurgy operation and conveys the collected gas stream to a control device for the removal of particulate matter (PM).

(b)Except as provided in paragraph

(c)of this section, you must not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation any gases which:

(1)Exit from a control device and contain in excess of 0.0052 grains of PM per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and

(2)Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any affected EAF(s) or ladle metallurgy operation(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.

(c)If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that produces less than 150,000 tons per year

(tpy)of stainless or specialty steel, you must not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation any gases which:

(1)Exit from a control device and contain in excess of 0.8 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of steel; and

(2)Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any affected EAF(s) or ladle metallurgy operation(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.

(d)Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, you must conduct performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emissions limit for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in paragraph

(b)or

(c)of this section.

(1)You must conduct each PM performance test for an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation according to the procedures in § 63.7 and 40 CFR 60.275a using the following test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4:

(i)Method 1 or 1A of Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

(ii)Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.

(iii)Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. You may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.

(iv)Method 4 of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.

(v)Method 5 or 5D of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the PM concentration. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a PM performance test. For EAF, sample only when metal is being melted and refined. For ladle metallurgy operations, sample only when the operation(s) are being conducted.

(2)You must conduct each opacity test for a melt shop according to the procedures in § 63.6(h) and Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60. When emissions from any EAF or ladle metallurgy operation are combined with emissions from emission sources not subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the melt shop opacity limit based on emissions from only the emission sources subject to this subpart.

(3)During any performance test, you must monitor and record the information specified in 40 CFR 60.274a(h) for all heats covered by the test.

(4)You must notify, and receive approval from the Administrator for procedures that will be used to determine compliance for an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation when emissions are combined with those from facilities not subject to this subpart.

(5)To determine compliance with the PM emissions limit in paragraph

(c)of this section for an EAF or ladle metallurgy operation in a lb/ton of steel format, compute the process-weighted mass emissions (E p ) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section: EP20SE07.000 Where: E p = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM, lb/ton; C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP, gr/dscf; Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr; T = Total time during a test run that a sample is withdrawn from the stack during steel production cycle, hr; P = Total amount of metal produced during the test run, tons; and K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound.

(6)If you own or operate an existing affected source that is subject to the emissions limits in paragraph

(b)or

(c)of this section, you may certify initial compliance for one or more emissions sources based on the results of a previous performance test for that emissions source in lieu of the requirement for an initial performance test provided that the test(s) were conducted within 5 years of the compliance date using the methods and procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) or

(2)of this section; the test(s) were for the affected facility; and the test(s) were representative of current or anticipated operating processes and conditions. Should the permitting authority deem the prior test data unacceptable, the owner or operator must conduct an initial performance test within 180 days of the rule compliance date.

(e)You must monitor the capture system and PM control device required by this subpart, maintain records, and submit reports according to the compliance assurance monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 64. The exemption in 40 CFR 64.2(b)(1)(i) for emissions limitations or standards proposed after November 15, 1990 under section 111 or 112 of the CAA does not apply. In lieu of the deadlines for submittal in 40 CFR 64.5, you must submit the monitoring information required by 40 CFR 64.4 to the applicable permitting authority for approval by no later than the compliance date for your affected source for this subpart and operate according to the approved plan by no later than 180 days after the date of approval by the permitting authority. Other Requirements and Information § 63.10690 What parts of the General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a)You must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as provided in Table 1 of this subpart.

(b)The notification of compliance status required by § 63.9(h) must include each applicable certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(6)of this section.

(1)For the pollution prevention plan requirements in § 63.10685(a)(1): “This facility has submitted a pollution prevention plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection in accordance with § 63.10685(a)(1)”;

(2)For the restrictions on metallic scrap in § 63.10685(a)(2): “This facility complies with the requirements for restricted metallic scrap in accordance with § 63.10685(a)(2)”;

(3)For the mercury requirements in § 63.10685(b):

(i)“This facility has prepared a site-specific plan for mercury switches in accordance with § 63.10685(b)(1)”;

(ii)“This facility participates in and purchases motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved the EPA Administrator in accordance with § 63.10685(b)(2)”; or

(iii)“The only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap charged to an electric arc furnace at this facility are materials recovered for their specialty alloy content in accordance with § 63.10685(b)(3) which are not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches”.

(4)This certification of compliance for the capture system requirements in § 63.10686(a), signed by a responsible official: “This facility operates a capture system for each electric arc furnace and ladle metallurgy operation that conveys the collected gas stream to a PM control device in accordance with § 63.10686(a)”.

(5)If applicable, this certification of compliance for the performance test requirements in § 63.10686(d)(6): “This facility certifies initial compliance with the applicable emissions limit in § 63.10686(a) or

(b)based on the results of a previous performance test in accordance with § 63.10686(d)(6)”.

(6)This certification of compliance for the monitoring requirements in § 63.10686(e), signed by a responsible official: “This facility has developed and submitted proposed monitoring information in accordance with 40 CFR part 64”. § 63.10691 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a)This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA or a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph

(c)of this section are retained by the Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(c)The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)Approval of a major change to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.

(2)Approval of major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40 CFR 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in 40 CFR 63.90. § 63.10692 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: *Capture system* means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport particulate matter generated by an electric arc furnace or ladle metallurgy operation to the air pollution control device. *Chlorinated plastics* means solid polymeric materials that contain chlorine in the polymer chain, such as polyvinyl chloride

(PVC)and PVC copolymers. *Control device* means the air pollution control equipment used to remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by an electric arc furnace or ladle metallurgy operation(s). *Deviation* means any instance where an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:

(1)Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or work practice standard;

(2)Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or

(3)Fails to meet any emissions limitation in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. *Electric arc furnace (EAF)* means a furnace that produces molten steel and heats the charge materials with electric arcs from carbon electrodes. An electric arc furnace consists of the furnace shell, roof, and the transformer. *Electric arc furnace

(EAF)steelmaking facility* means a steel plant that produces carbon, alloy, or specialty steels using an EAF. This definition excludes EAF steelmaking facilities at steel foundries. *Free organic liquids* means material that fails the paint filter test by EPA Method 9095B (incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR 63.14) after accounting for water using a moisture determination test by ASTM Method D2216-05 or subsequent versions (incorporated by reference-see 40 CFR 63.14). If, after conducting a moisture determination test, any portion of the material passes through and drops from the filter within the 5-minute test period, the material contains *free organic liquids* . *Ladle metallurgy* means a steelmaking process that is performed typically in a ladle after initial refining in an electric arc furnace, including argon-oxygen decarburization, alloy addition, temperature adjustment, and other processes that adjust or amend the chemical and/or mechanical properties of steel. This definition does not include vacuum degassing. *Leaded steel* means steel that must meet a minimum specification for lead content (typically 0.25 percent or more) and for which lead is a necessary alloy for that grade of steel. *Mercury switch* means each mercury-containing capsule or switch assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed in a vehicle. *Motor vehicle* means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and usually is operated with rubber tires for use on highways. *Motor vehicle scrap* means vehicle or automobile bodies, including automobile body hulks, that have been processed through a shredder. *Motor vehicle scrap* does not include automobile manufacturing bundles, or miscellaneous vehicle parts, such as wheels, bumpers or other components that do not contain mercury switches. *Scrap provider* means the person (including a broker) who contracts directly with a steel mill to provide motor vehicle scrap. Scrap processors such as shredder operators or vehicle dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to a steel mill are not *scrap providers* . *Specialty steel* means low carbon and high alloy steel other than stainless steel that is processed in an argon-oxygen decarburization vessel. *Stainless steel* means low carbon steel that contains at least 10.5 percent chromium. As required in § 63.10691(a), you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table: Table 1 To Subpart YYYYY of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYYY Citation Subject Applies to Subpart YYYYY? Explanation § 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),

(e)Applicability Yes § 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),

(d)Reserved No § 63.2 Definitions Yes § 63.3 Units and Abbreviations Yes § 63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes § 63.5 Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements Yes § 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(5)-(h)(9), (i),

(j)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes § 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv) Reserved No § 63.7 Applicability and Performance Test Dates Yes § 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c), (d),(e), (f)(1)-(5),

(g)Monitoring Requirements Yes Requirements in § 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii), (c)(5) and (c)(6), (d), (e), and

(g)apply if a COMS or CEMS is used. § 63.8(a)(3) [Reserved] No § 63.8(a)(4) Additional Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices in § 63.11 No § 63.8(c)(4) Continuous Monitoring System Requirements Yes Requirements apply if a COMS or CEMS is used. § 63.8(f)(6) RATA Alternative Yes Requirements apply if a CEMS is used. § 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i),

(j)Notification Requirements Yes § 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) Reserved No § 63.9(b)(4) No § 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-(v), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(15), (d), (e)(1)-(e)(4), (e)(4),

(f)Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes Additional records for CMS in § 63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)-(15), and reports in § 63.10(d)(1)-(2) apply if a COMS or CEMS is used. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) CMS Records for RATA Alternative Yes Requirements apply if a CEMS is used. § 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9) Reserved No § 63.11 Control Device Requirements No § 63.12 State Authority and Delegations Yes § 63.13-63.16 Addresses, Incorporations by Reference, Availability of Information, Performance Track Provisions Yes [FR Doc. E7-18343 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 182 Thursday, September 20, 2007 Proposed Rules 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: • *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-9744. • *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 *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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The *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 *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 *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 *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

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is

(202)566-1742. 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:

(919)541-3207; e-mail address: *Neuffer.Bill@epa.gov.* 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:

(919)541-5167, fax number:

(919)541-3207, e-mail address: *Fairchild.Susan@epa.gov.* 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: Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry: Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 327122 327111 327112 Area source facilities that manufacture ceramic wall and floor tile, vitreous plumbing fixtures, vitreous china tableware and kitchenware, and/or pottery. Glass Manufacturing 327211 327212 327213 Area source facilities that manufacture flat glass, glass containers, and other pressed and blown glass and glassware. Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing 331492 331423 Area source brass and bronze ingot making, secondary magnesium processing, or secondary zinc processing 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 *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

(919)541-7966 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°C (3160°F) for lead. Based on available information, the highest peak firing temperature used in the clay ceramics manufacturing industry is approximately 1370°C (2500°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°C (2800°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 PM 10 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°C (2800°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 °C (2800 °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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.9(b). Any facility with an affected source would also have to submit a Notification of Compliance Status, as specified in § 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 °C (1800 to 2280 °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, NO X , 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 (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), 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 SO 2 emissions by about 11.1 Mg/yr (12.2 tpy); secondary NO X 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 techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360 (for Glass Manufacturing), and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0940 (for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing). Submit any comments related to the ICR for the proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 20, 2007, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 22, 2007. The final rules will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in the proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed area source NESHAP on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business whose parent company meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 to 750 employees for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, less than 750 to 1,000 employees for Glass Manufacturing, and less than 750 employees for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing, depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code);

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise, which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Based on our estimates, EPA does not expect any new clay ceramic or secondary nonferrous metal processing sources to be constructed in the foreseeable future and so therefore did not estimate the impacts for new clay ceramics manufacturing or secondary nonferrous metal processing sources. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rules on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There would be no significant impacts on new or existing clay ceramics manufacturing facilities or secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities because these proposed rules do not create any new requirements or burdens other than minimal notification requirements. The minimal notification requirements consist of reading the rule and providing two initial notifications to EPA: One notifying EPA that the facility is subject to the rule and one notifying EPA that the facility is in compliance with the rule. These notifications may be submitted together. We estimate the cost of these one time notification requirements to be $974 for each clay ceramics manufacturing facility and $390 for each secondary nonferrous metals processing facility. These costs were estimated based on the costs of technical, management, and clerical support salaries. We also estimate that 34 clay ceramics facilities and 6 secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities are owned and operated by small businesses. These notification costs would be less than 0.25 percent for any of these small businesses. Twenty one glass manufacturing facilities are estimated to require additional costs because of the proposed rule. None of these facilities are small businesses. Therefore, there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that the proposed rules do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the proposed rules are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the proposed rules do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rules contain no requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any 1 year or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, the proposed rules are not subject to section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to assure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The proposed rules do not have federalism implications. They would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rules. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on these proposed rules from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to assure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The proposed rules do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rules. EPA specifically solicits additional comments on the proposed rules from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rules are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The glass manufacturing rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any significant adverse energy effects. Existing energy requirements for this industry would not be significantly impacted by the additional pollution controls or other equipment that may be required by this proposed rule. The clay ceramics manufacturing and the secondary nonferrous metals processing proposed rules are not “significant energy actions” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that these proposed rules are not likely to have any adverse energy effects. The energy requirements for these industries would remain at existing levels. No additional pollution controls or other equipment that would consume energy are required by these proposed rules. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS)in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when EPA does not use available and applicable VCS. The proposed rule as it applies to glass manufacturing involves technical standards. EPA cites the following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 17, and 22 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2F, 2G, and 22. The search and review results are in the dockets for the proposed rules. The search identified one VCS as an acceptable alternative to EPA methods. The standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is cited in the proposed rule for glass manufacturing area sources for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 other VCS. EPA determined that these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the Glass Manufacturing proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 14 methods are included in the docket for the Glass Manufacturing proposed rule. Sections 63.11440 and 63.11452 list the test methods included in the proposed rule. For the methods required or referenced by the proposed rule, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that these proposed rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. These proposed rules establish national standards for each area source category. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 12, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart A—[AMENDED] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows: § 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

(i)* * *

(1)ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), Table 5 of subpart DDDDD of this part, 63.11452(b)(12), and 63.11466(c)(1)(iii). 3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart RRRRRR to read as follows: Subpart RRRRRR—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources Applicability and Compliance Dates Sec. 63.11435 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11436 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.11437 What are my compliance dates? Standards, Compliance, and Monitoring Requirements 63.11438 What are the standards for new and existing sources? 63.11439 What are the initial compliance demonstration requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11440 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11441 What are the notification requirements? 63.11442 What are the recordkeeping requirements? Other Requirements and Information 63.11443 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11444 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11445 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.11446—63.11447 [Reserved] Tables to Subpart RRRRRR of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart RRRRRR of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRRR Subpart RRRRRR—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11435 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay ceramics manufacturing facility (as defined in § 63.11444), with an atomized glaze spray booth or kiln that fires glazed ceramic ware, that processes more than 45 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (50 tons per year (tpy)) wet clay and is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources. 63.11436 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a)This subpart applies to any existing, new, or reconstructed affected source located at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility.

(b)The affected source includes all atomized glaze spray booths and kilns that fire glazed ceramic ware located at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility.

(c)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before September 20, 2007.

(d)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 20, 2007. § 63.11437 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the standards no later than the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(b)If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)If you start up your affected source on or before the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must comply with this subpart no later than the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(2)If you start up your affected source after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must comply with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source. Standards, Compliance, and Monitoring Requirements § 63.11438 What are the standards for new and existing sources?

(a)For each kiln that fires glazed ceramic ware, you must maintain the peak temperature below 1540 °C (2800 °F) and comply with one of the management practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)of this section:

(1)Use natural gas, or equivalent clean-burning fuel, as the kiln fuel; or

(2)Use an electric-powered kiln.

(b)You must maintain annual wet glaze usage records for your facility.

(c)For each atomized glaze spray booth located at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that uses more than 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) of wet glaze(s), you must comply with the equipment standard requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section or the management practice in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(1)Route the emissions from the atomized glaze spray booth through an APCD, as defined in § 63.11444.

(i)Operate and maintain the APCD in accordance with the equipment manufacturer's specifications;

(ii)Monitor the APCD according to the applicable requirements in § 63.11440.

(2)Alternatively, use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP.

(d)For each atomized glaze spray booth located at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that uses 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) or less of wet glaze(s), you must comply with one of the management practices in paragraphs (d)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)Employ waste minimization practices, as defined in § 63.11444; or

(2)Alternatively, comply with the equipment standard requirements described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section or the management practice described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(e)Surface applications (e.g., wet glazes) containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP do not have to be considered in determination of the 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) threshold for wet glaze usage. § 63.11439 What are the initial compliance demonstration requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)You must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable management practices in § 63.11438 by submitting a Notification of Compliance Status. For any wet spray glaze operations controlled with an APCD, you must conduct an initial inspection of the control equipment as described in § 63.11440(b)(1) within 60 days of the compliance date and include the results of the inspection in the Notification of Compliance Status.

(b)You must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable management practices in § 63.11438 by submitting the Notification of Compliance Status within 120 calendar days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11437. § 63.11440 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)For each kiln firing glazed ceramic ware, you must conduct a daily check of the peak firing temperature. If the peak temperature exceeds 1540 °C (2800 °F), you must take corrective action according to your standard operating procedures.

(b)For each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source with an atomized glaze spray booth equipped with an APCD, you must demonstrate compliance by conducting the monitoring activities in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(3)of this section:

(1)*Initial control device inspection.* You must conduct an initial inspection of each particulate matter

(PM)control device according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) or

(ii)of this section. You must conduct each inspection no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date for each installed control device which has been operated within 60 days of the compliance date. For an installed control device which has not been operated within 60 days of the compliance date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the control device.

(i)For each wet control system, you must verify the presence of water flow to the control equipment. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and inspect the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) for structural integrity and the condition of the control system. An initial inspection of the internal components of a wet control system is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

(ii)For each baghouse, you must visually inspect the system ductwork and baghouse unit for leaks. You must also inspect the inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric filter condition. You must record the results of the inspection and any maintenance action in the logbook required in paragraph

(d)of this section. An initial inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

(2)*Periodic inspections/maintenance.* Following the initial inspections, you must perform periodic inspections and maintenance of each PM control device according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or

(ii)of this section.

(i)You must inspect and maintain each wet control system according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) through

(C)of this section.

(A)You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system.

(B)You must conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks.

(C)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the wet control system (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment every 12 months.

(ii)You must inspect and maintain each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) and

(B)of this section.

(A)You must conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork for leaks.

(B)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric filter every 12 months.

(3)As an alternative to the monitoring activities in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you may demonstrate compliance by:

(i)Conducting a daily 30-minute visible emissions

(VE)test (i.e., no visible emissions) using EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7); or

(ii)Using an approved alternative monitoring technique under § 63.8(f).

(c)If the results of the visual inspection, VE test, or alternative monitoring technique conducted under paragraph

(b)of this section indicate an exceedance, you must take corrective action according to the equipment manufacturer's specifications or instructions.

(d)You must maintain records of your monitoring activities described in paragraphs

(a)through

(c)of this section. You may use your existing operating permit documentation to meet the monitoring requirements if it includes, but is not limited to, the monitoring records listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through

(5)of this section related to any kiln peak temperature checks, visual inspections, VE tests, or alternative monitoring:

(1)The date, place, and time;

(2)Person conducting the activity;

(3)Technique or method used;

(4)Operating conditions during the activity; and

(5)Results. § 63.11441 What are the notification requirements?

(a)You must submit an Initial Notification required by § 63.9(a)(2) no later than 120 calendar days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11437. The Initial Notification must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(4)of this section and may be combined with the Notification of Compliance Status required in paragraph

(b)of this section.

(1)The name and address of the owner or operator;

(2)The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source; and

(3)An identification of the relevant standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of the notification and source's compliance date.

(b)You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.9(h) no later than 120 calendar days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11437. In addition to the information required in § 63.9(h)(2), your notification(s) must include each compliance certification in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(3)of this section that applies to you and may be combined with the Initial Notification required in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(1)For each kiln firing glazed ceramic ware, you must certify that you are maintaining the peak temperature below 1540°C (2800°F) and complying with one of the management practices in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(ii)of this section:

(i)Using natural gas, or equivalent clean-burning fuel, as the kiln fuel; or

(ii)Using an electric-powered kiln.

(2)For atomized glaze spray booths, you must certify that your facility's annual wet glaze usage is above or below 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy).

(3)For atomized glaze spray booths located at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that uses more than 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) of wet glaze(s), you must certify that:

(i)You are operating and maintaining an APCD in accordance with the equipment manufacturer's specifications, and you have conducted an initial control device inspection for each wet control system and baghouse associated with wet spray glaze operations; or

(ii)Alternatively, you are using wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent clay ceramics metal HAP.

(4)For atomized glaze spray booths located at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that uses 227 Mg/yr (250 tpy) or less of wet glaze(s), you must certify that:

(i)You are employing waste minimization practices, as defined in § 63.11444; or

(ii)You are complying with the requirements in § 63.11441(b)(3)(i) or (ii). § 63.11442 What are the recordkeeping requirements?

(a)You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)A copy of each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2)Records of all required measurements needed to document compliance with management practices as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(vii), including records of monitoring and inspection data required by §§ 63.11440.

(b)Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1).

(c)As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.

(d)You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.11443 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. § 63.11444 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: *Air pollution control device (APCD)* means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. Examples of APCD currently used on glaze spray booths include, but are not limited to, wet scrubbers, fabric filters, water curtains, and water-wash systems. *Atomization* means the conversion of a liquid into a spray or mist (i.e., collection of drops), often by passing the liquid through a nozzle. *Clay ceramics manufacturing facility* means a plant site that manufactures pressed tile, sanitaryware, dinnerware, or pottery. For the purposes of this area source rule, the following types of facilities are not part of the regulated category: artisan potters, art studios, school and university ceramic arts programs, and any facility that uses less than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) of wet clay. *Clay ceramics metal HAP* means an oxide or other compound of chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel, which were listed for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing in the Revised Area Source Category List (67 FR 70428, November 22, 2002). *Glaze* means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material applied to ceramic products before firing. *Glaze spray booth* means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze on ceramic products. *High-volume, low-pressure

(HVLP)spray equipment* means a type of air atomized spray equipment that operates at low atomizing air pressure (0.1 to 10 pounds per square inch

(psi)at the air nozzle) and uses 15 to 30 cubic feet per minute

(cfm)of air to minimize the amount of overspray and bounce back. *Kiln* means equipment used for the initial curing or firing of glaze on ceramic ware. A kiln may operate continuously or by batch. *Nonatomizing glaze application technique* means the application of glaze in the form of a liquid stream without atomization. Such techniques include, but are not limited to, dipping, centrifugal disc, waterfall, flow coaters, curtain coaters, silk-screening, and any direct application by roller, brush, pad, or other means facilitating direct transfer of glaze. *Plant site* means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. *Waste minimization practices* mean those routine procedures employed to minimize material losses and prevent unnecessary waste generation, for example, minimizing glaze overspray emissions using HVLP spray equipment (defined in this section) 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. *Water curtain* means an APCD that draws the exhaust stream through a continuous curtain of moving water to scrub out suspended particulate. Also called a drip curtain or waterfall. *Water-wash system* means an APCD that uses a series of baffles to redirect the upward exhaust stream through a water wash chamber with downward water flow to scrub out suspended particulate. § 63.11445 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a)This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph

(c)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(c)The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§ 63.11435 and 63.11436, the compliance date requirements in § 63.11437, and the management practices in § 63.11438.

(2)Approval of a major change to a test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. §§ 63.11446-63.11447 [Reserved] Tables to Subpart RRRRRR of Part 63 As stated in § 63.11443, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table: Table 1 to Subpart RRRRRR of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRRR Citation Subject 63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2) 1 , (c)(5),

(e)Applicability. 63.2. Definitions. 63.3 Units and Abbreviations. 63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (f), (g), (i),

(j)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)(i)-(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(3),

(f)Monitoring Requirements. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (c), (d), (h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i),

(j)Notification Requirements. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(vii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c), (c)(1),

(f)Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. 63.12 State Authority and Delegations. 63.13 Addresses. 63.14 Incorporations by Reference. 63.15 Availability of Information and Confidentiality. 63.16 Performance Track Provisions. 1 Section 63.11435(b) of this subpart exempts area sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating permits. 4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart SSSSSS to read as follows: Subpart SSSSSS—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Glass Manufacturing Area Sources Applicability and Compliance Dates Sec. 63.11448 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11449 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.11450 What are my compliance dates? Standards, Compliance, and Monitoring Requirements 63.11451 What are the standards for new and existing sources? 63.11452 What are the performance test requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11453 What are the initial compliance demonstration requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11454 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11455 What are the continuous compliance requirements for new and existing sources? Notifications and Records 63.11456 What are the notification requirements? 63.11457 What are the recordkeeping requirements? Other Requirements and Information 63.11458 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11459 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11460 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.11461 [Reserved] Tables to Subpart SSSSSS of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart SSSSSS of Part 63—Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart SSSSSS of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart SSSSSS Subpart SSSSSS—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Glass Manufacturing Area Sources Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11448 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a glass manufacturing facility that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions and meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)A glass manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures flat glass, glass containers, or pressed and blown glass by melting a mixture of raw materials, as defined in § 63.11459, to produce molten glass and forming the molten glass into sheets, containers, or other shapes.

(2)An area source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that does not have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) or more and any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more.

(3)Your glass manufacturing facility produces glass that contains compounds of one or more glass manufacturing metal HAP, as defined in § 63.11459, as raw materials in a glass manufacturing batch formulation.

(b)[Reserved] § 63.11449 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a)This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected glass melting furnace that is located at a glass manufacturing facility and satisfies the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)The furnace is charged with compounds of one or more glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials.

(2)The furnace is used to produce glass at a rate of at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy).

(b)An affected source is an existing source if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before September 20, 2007.

(c)An affected source is a new (or reconstructed) source if you commenced construction (or reconstruction) of the affected source on or after September 20, 2007. § 63.11450 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in § 63.11451 of this subpart no later than 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . As specified in section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act and in § 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A), you may request that the Administrator or delegated authority grant an extension allowing up to 1 additional year to comply with the applicable emission limits if such additional period is necessary for the installation of emission controls.

(b)If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)If you start up your affected source on or before the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in § 63.11451 of this subpart no later than the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(2)If you start up your affected source after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in § 63.11451 of this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source.

(c)If you own or operate a furnace that produces glass at an annual rate of less than 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy), and you increase glass production for that furnace to an annual rate of at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy), and the furnace is charged with compounds of one or more glass manufacturing metal HAP, you must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in § 63.11451 within 2 years of the date on which you increased the glass production rate for the furnace to at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy).

(d)If you own or operate a furnace that produces glass at an annual rate of at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) and is not charged with glass manufacturing metal HAP, and you begin production of a glass product that includes one or more glass manufacturing metal HAP as raw materials, you must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in § 63.11451 within 2 years of the date on which you introduced production of the glass product that contains glass manufacturing metal HAP.

(e)You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.11456 according to the schedule in § 63.11456 and in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with emission limits specified in this subpart. Standards, Compliance, and Monitoring Requirements § 63.11451 What are the standards for new and existing sources? If you are an owner or operator of an affected furnace, as defined in § 63.11449(a), you must meet the applicable emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. § 63.11452 What are the performance test requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)If you own or operate an affected furnace that is subject to an emission limit specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test according to paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)and paragraph

(b)of this section.

(1)For each affected furnace, you must conduct a performance test within 180 days after your compliance date and report the results in your Notification of Compliance Status, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2)You are not required to conduct a performance test on the affected furnace if you satisfy the conditions described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)You conducted a performance test on the affected furnace within the past 5 years of the compliance date using the same test methods and procedures specified in paragraph

(b)of this section.

(ii)The performance test demonstrated that the affected furnace met the applicable emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart.

(iii)Either no process changes have been made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit.

(b)You must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7 and paragraphs (b)(1) through

(20)of this section.

(1)Install and validate all monitoring equipment required by this subpart before conducting the performance test.

(2)Conduct the performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7 and under the conditions specified in this section.

(3)You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1).

(4)Conduct the test while the source is operating at the maximum production rate.

(5)Conduct at least three separate test runs with a minimum duration of 1 hour for each test run, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3).

(6)Record the test date.

(7)Identify the emission source tested.

(8)Collect and record the emission test data listed in this section for each run of the performance test.

(9)Locate all sampling sites at the outlet of the control device or at the stack prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

(10)Select the locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points using Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1.

(11)Measure the gas velocity and volumetric flow rate using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1 and A-2, during each test run.

(12)Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Methods 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, or ASME PTC 19.10-1981—Part 10, during each test run.

(13)Measure gas moisture content using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, during each test run.

(14)Measure the particulate matter

(PM)mass emission rate at the outlet of the control device or at the stack using Method 5 or 17 of 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-3 or A-6, for each test run.

(15)Calculate the PM mass emission rate in the exhaust stream for each test run.

(16)Measure and record the glass production rate (kilograms

(tons)per hour of product) for each test run.

(17)To meet the PM emission limit, calculate the production-based PM mass emission rate (g/kg (lbs/ton)) for each test run using Equation 1. EP20SE07.001 Where: MP = production-bass PM mass emission rate, grams of PM per kilogram (pounds of PM per ton) of glass produced. ER = PM mass emission rate measured using Methods 5 or 17 during each performance test run, grams (pounds) per hour. P = average glass production rate for the performance test, kilograms

(tons)of glass produced per hour.

(18)Calculate the 3-hour block average production-based PM mass emission rate as the average of the production-based PM mass emission rates for each test run.

(19)To meet the metal HAP emission limit, calculate the production-based metal HAP mass emission rate (g/kg (lbs/ton)) for each test run using Equation 2. EP20SE07.002 Where: MPM = production-bass metal HAP mass emission rate, grams of metal HAP per kilogram (pounds of metal HAP per ton) of glass produced. ERM = Metal HAP mass emission rate measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 during each performance test run, grams (pounds) per hour. P = average glass production rate for the performance test, kilograms

(tons)of glass produced per hour.

(20)Calculate the 3-hour block average production-based metal HAP mass emission rate as the average of the production-based metal HAP mass emission rates for each test run. § 63.11453 What are the initial compliance demonstration requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)If you own or operate an affected source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with § 63.9(h) and 63.11456(b).

(b)For each existing affected furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)For each fabric filter that is used to meet the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must visually inspect the system ductwork and fabric filter unit for leaks. You must also inspect the inside of each fabric filter for structural integrity and fabric filter condition. You must record the results of the inspection and any maintenance action as required in § 63.11457.

(2)For each electrostatic precipitator

(ESP)that is used to meet the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and ESP housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior of the ESP to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, hopper, and air diffuser plates.

(3)You must conduct each inspection specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11450, except as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) and

(ii)of this section.

(i)An initial inspection of the internal components of a fabric filter is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

(ii)An initial inspection of the internal components of an ESP is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months.

(4)You must satisfy the applicable requirements for performance tests specified in § 63.11452.

(c)For each new or reconstructed affected furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with a fabric filter, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through

(viii)of this section.

(i)The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.

(ii)The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).

(iii)The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

(iv)In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.

(v)Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section.

(vi)Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(vii)You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of the fabric filter.

(viii)Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(2)You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through

(vi)of this section.

(i)Installation of the bag leak detection system;

(ii)Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;

(iii)Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures;

(iv)How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;

(v)How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and stored; and

(vi)Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as practicable.

(3)For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section, you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following:

(i)Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in PM emissions;

(ii)Sealing off defective bags or filter media;

(iii)Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing the control device;

(iv)Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;

(v)Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system; or

(vi)Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.

(d)For each new or reconstructed affected furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with an ESP, you must install, operate, and maintain according to the manufacturer's specifications, one or more continuous parameter monitoring systems

(CPMS)for measuring and recording the secondary voltage and secondary electrical current to each field of the ESP according to paragraphs (d)(1) through

(13)of this section.

(1)The CPMS must have an accuracy of 1 percent of the secondary voltage and secondary electrical current, or better.

(2)Your CPMS must be capable of measuring the secondary voltage and secondary electrical current over a range that extends from a value that is at least 20 percent less than the lowest value that you expect your CPMS to measure, to a value that is at least 20 percent greater than the highest value that you expect your CPMS to measure.

(3)The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data acquisition and recording system of your CPMS must be compatible with the output signal of the sensors used in your CPMS.

(4)The data acquisition and recording system of your CPMS must be able to record values over the entire range specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

(5)The data recording system associated with your CPMS must have a resolution of one-half of the required overall accuracy of your CPMS, as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, or better.

(6)Your CPMS must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when the system detects a decrease in secondary voltage or secondary electrical current below the alarm set point established according to paragraph (d)(7) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

(7)In the initial adjustment of the CPMS, you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.

(8)You must install each sensor of the CPMS in a location that provides representative measurement of the appropriate parameter over all operating conditions, taking into account the manufacturer's guidelines.

(9)You must perform an initial calibration of your CPMS based on the procedures specified in the manufacturer's owner's manual.

(10)Your CPMS must be designed to complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally-spaced data values (or at least 75 percent of the total number of values if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, or out of control periods).

(11)You must record valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours during which the affected source or process operates.

(12)You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, initial validation, and accuracy audit.

(13)At all times, you must maintain your CPMS including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS.

(e)For each new or reconstructed affected furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled a device other than a fabric filter or an ESP, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the delegated authority for approval. Each plan must contain the information in paragraphs (e)(1) through

(5)of this section.

(1)A description of the device;

(2)Test results collected in accordance with § 63.11452 verifying the performance of the device for reducing PM to the levels required by this subpart;

(3)Operation and maintenance plan for the control device (including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and continuous monitoring system;

(4)A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits; and

(5)Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected during the performance test. § 63.11454 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)For each monitoring system required by this subpart, you must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain the monitoring system according to the manufacturer's specifications and the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(6)of this section.

(1)You must install each sensor of your monitoring system in a location that provides representative measurement of the appropriate parameter over all operating conditions, taking into account the manufacturer's guidelines.

(2)You must perform an initial calibration of your monitoring system based on the manufacturer's recommendations.

(3)You must use a monitoring system that is designed to complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.

(4)For each existing affected furnace, you must record the value of the monitored parameter at least every 8 hours. The value can be recorded electronically or manually.

(5)You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, monitoring system maintenance, and corrective action taken to return the monitoring system to normal operation.

(6)At all times, you must maintain your monitoring system including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the system.

(b)For each existing furnace that subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with an ESP, you must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or

(2)of this section.

(1)You must monitor the secondary voltage and secondary electrical current to each field of the ESP according to the requirements of this section, or

(2)You must submit a request for alternative monitoring, as described in paragraph

(g)of this section.

(c)For each existing furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with a fabric filter, you must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) or

(2)of this section.

(1)You must monitor the inlet temperature to the fabric filter according to the requirements of this section, or

(2)You must submit a request for alternative monitoring, as described in paragraph

(g)of this section.

(d)For each new or reconstructed furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with an ESP, you must monitor the voltage and electrical current to each field of the ESP on a continuous basis using one or more CPMS according to the requirements for CPMS specified in § 63.11453(d).

(e)For each new or reconstructed furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with a fabric filter, you must install and operate a bag leak detection system according to the requirements for CPMS specified in § 63.11453(c).

(f)For each new, reconstructed, or existing furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with a control device other than an ESP or fabric filter, you must meet the requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(1)Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring methods to the Administrator no later than the submittal date for the Notification of Compliance Status, as specified in § 63.11456(b). The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through

(v)of this section.

(i)Description of the alternative add-on air pollution control device (APCD).

(ii)Type of monitoring device or method that will be used, including the sensor type, location, inspection procedures, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures, and data recording device.

(iii)Operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv)Frequency that the operating parameter values will be measured and recorded.

(v)Procedures for inspecting the condition and operation of the control device and monitoring system.

(g)If you wish to use a monitoring method other than those specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (c)(1) of this section, you must meet the requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

(v)of this section.

(i)Type of monitoring device or method that will be used, including the sensor type, location, inspection procedures, QA/QC measures, and data recording device.

(ii)Operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iii)Frequency that the operating parameter values will be measured and recorded.

(v)Procedures for inspecting the condition and operation of the monitoring system.

(vi)Explanation for how the alternative monitoring method will provide assurance that the emission control device is operating properly.

(2)[Reserved] § 63.11455 What are the continuous compliance requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)You must be in compliance with the applicable emission limits and work practices in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(b)You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(c)For each affected furnace that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must monitor the performance of the furnace emission control device according to the requirements in §§ 63.6(e)(1) and 63.8(c) and paragraphs (c)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)For each affected furnace that is controlled with an ESP, you must monitor the parameters specified in § 63.11454(b) in accordance with the requirements of § 63.11454(a) or as specified in your approved alternative monitoring plan.

(2)For each affected furnace that is controlled with a fabric filter, you must monitor the parameter specified in § 63.11454(c) in accordance with the requirements of § 63.11454(a) or as specified in your approved alternative monitoring plan.

(3)For each affected furnace that is controlled with a device other than a fabric filter or ESP, you must comply with the requirements of your approved alternative monitoring plan, as required in § 63.11454(g).

(4)For each monitoring system that is required under this subpart, you must keep the records specified in § 63.11457.

(d)Following the initial inspections, you must perform periodic inspections and maintenance of each affected furnace control device according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)For each fabric filter, you must conduct inspections at least every 12 months according to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)You must inspect the ductwork and fabric filter unit for leakage.

(ii)You must inspect the interior of the fabric filter for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric filter.

(iii)If an initial inspection is not required, as specified in § 63.11453(b)(3)(i), the first inspection must not be more than 12 months from the last inspection.

(2)For each ESP, you must conduct inspections according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)You must conduct visual inspections of the system ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks at least every 12 months.

(ii)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the ESP to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air diffuser plates every 24 months.

(iii)If an initial inspection is not required, as specified in § 63.11453(b)(3)(ii), the first inspection must not be more than 24 months from the last inspection.

(3)You must record the results of each periodic inspection specified in this section in a logbook (written or electronic format), as specified in § 63.11457.

(4)If the results of a required inspection indicate a problem with the operation of the emission control system, you must take immediate corrective action to return the control device to normal operation according to the equipment manufacturer's specifications or instructions. Notifications and Records § 63.11456 What are the notification requirements?

(a)If you own or operate an affected furnace, as defined in § 63.11449(a), you must submit an Initial Notification in accordance with § 63.9(b) and paragraphs (a)(1) through

(3)of this section by the dates specified.

(1)As specified in § 63.9(b)(2) and (3), if you start up your affected source before the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(2)The Initial Notification must include the information specified in § 63.9(b)(2)(i) to (iv).

(3)As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(b)You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with § 63.9(h) and the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)If you own or operate an affected furnace and are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, according to § 60.8 or § 63.10(d)(2).

(2)If you own or operate an affected furnace and satisfy the conditions specified in § 63.11452(a)(2) and are not required to conduct a performance test, you submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the results of the previous performance test, before the close of business on the compliance date specified in § 63.11450, according to § 63.10(d)(2). § 63.11457 What are the recordkeeping requirements?

(a)You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(9)of this section.

(1)A copy of any Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted and all documentation supporting those notifications, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2)The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through

(v)related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(3)The records specified in § 63.10(b)(2) and (c)(1) through (13).

(4)The records required to show continuous compliance with each emission limit that applies to you, as specified in § 63.11455.

(5)For each affected source, records of production rate on a process throughput basis (either feed rate to the process unit or discharge rate from the process unit).

(i)The production data must include the amount (weight or weight percent) of each ingredient in the batch formulation, including all glass manufacturing metal HAP compounds.

(ii)[Reserved]

(6)Records of maintenance activities and inspections performed on control devices as specified in §§ 63.11453(b) and 63.11455(d), according to paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through

(v)of this section.

(i)The date, place, and time of inspections of control device ductwork, interior, and operation.

(ii)Person conducting the inspection.

(iii)Technique or method used to conduct the inspection.

(iv)Control device operating conditions during the time of the inspection.

(v)Results of the inspection and description of any corrective action taken.

(7)Records of all required monitoring data and supporting information including all calibration and maintenance records.

(8)For each bag leak detection system, the records specified in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)Records of the bag leak detection system output;

(ii)Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and

(iii)The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.

(9)Records of any approved alternative monitoring method(s) or test procedure(s).

(b)Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1).

(c)You must record the results of each inspection and maintenance action in a logbook (written or electronic format). You must keep the logbook onsite and make the logbook available to the permitting authority upon request.

(d)As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for a minimum of 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.11458 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? You must satisfy the requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. § 63.11459 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: *Air pollution control device (APCD)* means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. *Cullet* means recycled glass that is mixed with raw materials and charged to a glass melting furnace to produce glass. *Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)* means an APCD that removes PM from an exhaust gas stream by applying an electrical charge to particles in the gas stream and collecting the charged particles on plates carrying the opposite electrical charge. *Fabric filter* means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media. *Glass manufacturing metal HAP* means an oxide or other compound of any of the following metals included in the list of urban HAP for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy and for which Glass Manufacturing was listed as an area source category: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. *Glass melting furnace* means a unit comprising a refractory-lined vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charging system, heat exchangers, melter cooling system, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and transferring molten glass to forming apparatuses. *Particulate matter (PM)* means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Methods 5 or 17 (40 CFR part 60, appendices A-3 and A-6), and as a surrogate for glass manufacturing metal HAP compounds contained in the PM including, but not limited to, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. *Plant site* means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. *Raw material* means minerals, such as silica sand, limestone, and dolomite; inorganic chemical compounds, such as soda ash (sodium carbonate), salt cake (sodium sulfate), and potash (potassium carbonate); metal oxides and other metal-based compounds, such as lead oxide, chromium oxide, and sodium antimonate; metal ores, such as chromite and pyrolusite; and other substances that are intentionally added to a glass manufacturing batch and melted in a glass melting furnace to produce glass. Metals that are naturally-occurring trace constituents or contaminants of other substances are not considered to be raw materials. § 63.11460 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a)This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph

(c)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(c)The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§ 63.11448 and 63.11449, the compliance date requirements in § 63.11450, and the emission limits specified in § 63.11451.

(2)Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.11461 [Reserved] Tables to Subpart SSSSSS of Part 63 As required in § 63.11451, you must comply with each emission limit that applies to you according to the following table: Table 1 to Subpart SSSSSS of Part 63.—Emission Limits For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . 1. New or existing glass melting furnace that produces glass at an annual rate of at least 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) AND is charged with compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, manganese, lead, or nickel as raw materials a. The 3-hour block average production-based PM mass emission rate must not exceed 0.2 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of glass produced; OR b. The 3-hour block average production-based metal HAP mass emission rate must not exceed 0.02 lb/ton of glass produced. As stated in § 63.11458, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as shown in the following table: Table 2 to Subpart SSSSSS of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart SSSSSS Citation Subject § 63.1(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),

(e)Applicability. § 63.2 Definitions. § 63.3 Units and Abbreviations. § 63.4 Prohibited Activities. § 63.5 Construction/Reconstruction. § 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)-(j) Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements. § 63.7 Performance Testing Requirements. § 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-(c)(4), (c)(7)(i)(B), (c)(7)(ii), (c)(8), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4),

(f)Monitoring Requirements. § 63.9(a), (b)(1)(i)-(b)(2)(v), (b)(5), (c), (d), (h)-(j) Notification Requirements. § 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(xii) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), (c),

(f)Documentation for Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status. § 63.12 State Authority and Delegations. § 63.13 Addresses. § 63.14 Incorporation by Reference. § 63.15 Availability of Information. § 63.16 Performance Track Provisions. 5. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart TTTTTT to read as follows: Subpart TTTTTT—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources Applicability and Compliance Dates Sec. 63.11462 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11463 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.11464 What are my compliance dates? Standards, Compliance, and Monitoring Requirements 63.11465 What are the standards for new and existing sources? 63.11466 What are the performance test requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11467 What are the initial compliance demonstration requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11468 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11469 What are the notification requirements? 63.11470 What are the recordkeeping requirements? Other Requirements and Information 63.11471 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11472 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11473 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.11474 [Reserved] Tables to Subpart TTTTTT of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart TTTTTT of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTTTT Subpart TTTTTT—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11462 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a secondary nonferrous metals processing facility (as defined in § 63.11472) that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources. § 63.11463 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a)This subpart applies to any existing, new, or reconstructed affected source located at a secondary nonferrous metals processing facility.

(b)The affected source includes all crushing and screening operations at a secondary zinc processing facility and all furnace melting operations located at any secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities.

(c)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before September 20, 2007.

(d)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 20, 2007. § 63.11464 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the standards no later than the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** .

(b)If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.

(2)If you start up your affected source after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** , you must comply with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source. Standards, Compliance, and Monitoring Requirements § 63.11465 What are the standards for new and existing sources?

(a)You must route the emissions from each existing affected source through a fabric filter or baghouse that achieves a PM control efficiency of at least 99.0 percent.

(b)You must route the emissions from each new affected source through a fabric filter or baghouse that achieves a PM control efficiency of at least 99.5 percent. § 63.11466 What are the performance test requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)Except as specified in paragraph

(b)of this section, if you own or operate an existing or new affected source, you must conduct a performance test for each affected source within 180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your notification of compliance status.

(b)If you own or operate an existing affected source, you are not required to conduct a performance test if a prior performance test was conducted within the past 5 years of the compliance date using the same methods specified in paragraph

(c)of this section and you meet either of the following two conditions:

(1)No process changes have been made since the test; or

(2)You demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrates compliance despite process changes.

(c)*Test methods.* You must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7 and paragraphs (c)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)Determine the concentration of PM according to the following test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendices:

(i)Method 1 or 1A (Appendix A-1) to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

(ii)Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G (Appendices A-1 and A-2) to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.

(iii)Method 3, 3A, 3B(Appendix A-2), or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas.

(iv)Method 4 (Appendix A-3) to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.

(v)Method 5 or 5D (Appendix A-3) to determine the concentration of particulate matter (front half filterable catch only). Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test.

(2)During the test, you must operate each emissions source within ±10 percent of its normal process rate. You must monitor and record the process rate during the test. § 63.11467 What are the initial compliance demonstration requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)You must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable standards in § 63.11465 by submitting a Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with § 63.11469(b).

(b)You must conduct the inspection specified in paragraph

(c)of this section and include the results of the inspection in the Notification of Compliance Status.

(c)For each existing and new affected source, you must conduct an initial inspection of each baghouse. You must visually inspect the system ductwork and baghouse unit for leaks. Except as specified in paragraph

(e)of this section, you must also inspect the inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric filter condition. You must record the results of the inspection and any maintenance action as required in § 63.11470.

(d)For each installed baghouse that is in operation during the 60 days after the applicable compliance date, you must conduct the inspection specified in paragraph

(c)of this section no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date. For an installed baghouse that is not in operation during the 60 days after the applicable compliance date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the baghouse.

(e)An initial inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

(f)You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status within 120 calendar days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11464. § 63.11468 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)For an existing affected source, you must demonstrate compliance by conducting the monitoring activities in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section:

(1)Periodic inspections/maintenance. You must perform periodic inspections and maintenance of each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and

(ii)of this section.

(i)You must conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork for leaks.

(ii)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric filter every 12 months.

(2)As an alternative to the monitoring requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may demonstrate compliance by conducting a daily 30-minute visible emissions

(VE)test (i.e., no visible emissions) using EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).

(b)If the results of the visual inspection or VE test conducted under paragraph

(a)of this section indicate a problem with the operation of the baghouse, including but not limited to air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in PM emissions, you must take immediate corrective action to return the baghouse to normal operation according to the equipment manufacturer's specifications or instructions and record the corrective action taken.

(c)For each new affected source, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through

(viii)of this section.

(vii)You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of the fabric filter.

(viii)Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(vi)of this section.

(i)Installation of the bag leak detection system;

(ii)Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;

(iii)Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures;

(iv)How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;

(v)How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and stored; and

(i)Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in PM emissions;

(ii)Sealing off defective bags or filter media;

(iii)Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing the control device;

(iv)Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;

(v)Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system; or

(vi)Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions. § 63.11469 What are the notification requirements?

(a)You must submit the Initial Notification required by § 63.9(a)(2) no later than 120 calendar days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11464. The Initial Notification must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(3)of this section and may be combined with the Notification of Compliance Status required in § 63.11467 and paragraph

(b)of this section.

(1)The name and address of the owner or operator;

(2)The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source; and

(3)An identification of the relevant standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of the notification and source's compliance date.

(b)You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.9(h) no later than 120 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11464. In addition to the information required in § 63.9(h)(2)and § 63.11367, your notification must include the following certification(s) of compliance, as applicable, and signed by a responsible official:

(1)This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an existing affected source who is relying on a previous performance test: “This facility complies with the control efficiency requirement in § 63.11465 based on a previous performance test in accordance with § 63.11466.”

(2)This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of any new or existing affected source: “This facility has conducted an initial inspection of each control device according to the requirements in § 63.11467, will conduct periodic inspections and maintenance of control devices in accordance with § 63.11468, and will maintain records of each inspection and maintenance action required by § 63.11470.”

(3)This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of a new affected source: “This facility has an approved bag leak detection system monitoring plan in accordance with § 63.11468(c)(2).” § 63.11470 What are the recordkeeping requirements?

(a)You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)As required in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart and all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted.

(2)You must keep the records of all inspection and monitoring data required by § 63.11467 and § 63.11468, and the information identified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(v) for each required inspection or monitoring.

(i)The date, place, and time;

(ii)Person conducting the activity;

(iii)Technique or method used;

(iv)Operating conditions during the activity; and

(v)Results.

(b)Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1).

(c)As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.

(d)You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each recorded action according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.11471 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. § 63.11472 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: *Bag leak detection system* means a system that is capable of continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust loadings) in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter loadings. *Furnace melting operation* means the collection of processes used to charge post-consumer nonferrous scrap material to a furnace, melt the material, and transfer the molten material to a forming medium. *Secondary nonferrous metals processing facility* means a brass and bronze ingot making, secondary magnesium processing, or secondary zinc processing plant that uses furnace melting operations to melt post-consumer nonferrous metal scrap to make products including bars, ingots, and blocks, or metal powders. § 63.11473 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph

(c)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(c)The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in § 63.11462 and 63.11463, the compliance date requirements in § 63.11464, and the applicable standards in § 63.11465.

(2)Approval of a major change to a test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. § 63.11474 [Reserved] Tables to Subpart TTTTTT of Part 63 As stated in § 63.11470, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table: Table 1 to Subpart TTTTTT of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTTTT Citation Subject 63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1) 1 , (c)(2), (c)(5),

(e)Applicability. 63.2 Definitions. 63.3 Units and Abbreviations. 63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (f), (g), (i),

(j)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)(i)-(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(3),

(f)Monitoring Requirements. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (c), (d), (h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i),

(j)Notification Requirements. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(vii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c),

(FHA)Single Family Mortgage Insurance: Announcement of Planned Implementation of Risk-Based Premiums; Notice DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5171-N-01] Federal Housing Administration

(FHA)Single Family Mortgage Insurance: Announcement of Planned Implementation of Risk-Based Premiums AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice applies to FHA single family mortgage insurance programs. This notice announces FHA's planned implementation of risk-based premiums, which are designed for mortgage lenders to offer borrowers an FHA-insured product that provides a range of mortgage insurance premium pricing, based on the risk the insurance contract represents. DATES: *Comment Due Date:* October 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. *Comment by Mail* . Please note that due to security measures at all federal agencies, submission of comments by mail often results in delayed delivery. *Electronic Submission of Comments* . HUD now accepts comments electronically, which interested persons may now submit through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* . HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available for public viewing. Commenters should follow the instructions provided at *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit comments electronically. *No Facsimile Comments* . Facsimile

(FAX)comments are not acceptable. In all cases, communications must refer to the docket number and title. *Public Inspection of Public Comments* . All comments and communications submitted will be available, without revision, for inspection and downloading at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments are also available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the Regulations Division. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the comments by calling the Regulations Division at

(202)708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Burns, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone

(202)708-2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Risk-Based Premiums This notice announces HUD's plan to implement risk-based premiums for FHA loans for which case numbers have been assigned on or after January 1, 2008. Section 203(c)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)) establishes mortgage insurance premiums for most FHA single family programs. Such upfront and annual insurance premiums are set at levels not to exceed 2.25 percent and 0.50 percent (0.55 percent for mortgages involving an original principal obligation that is greater than 95 percent of the appraised value of the property), respectively, with a discount available on the upfront premiums for mortgagors who are first-time homebuyers and who successfully complete pre-purchase homeownership counseling approved by the Secretary. By offering a range of premiums based on risk, FHA will be able to offer options to mortgagees serving borrowers who were previously underserved, or not served, by the conventional marketplace. Alternatively, FHA will also be able to offer options to mortgagees serving those borrowers wishing to lower their premiums by, for example, increasing their downpayment or by improving their credit scores. A range of premiums based on risk will also ensure the future financial soundness of FHA programs that are obligations of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF). Under risk-based premiums, however, no qualified borrower will be charged by the mortgage lender in excess of the current statutory upfront and annual mortgage insurance premium limits. Additionally, this notice, when issued in final, will replace FHA's Mortgagee Letter 00-38, which identifies the current mortgage insurance premiums for FHA's single family programs. Risk-based premiums will utilize the following schedule for upfront mortgage insurance premium rates: FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premiums—Effective as of January 1, 2008 [All premiums are specified in basis points (0.01%)] Minimum Downpayment a (%) Decision Credit Score 850-680 679-640 639-600 599-560 559-500 499-300 None Funds from Borrower or a Relative 10 75 100 125 150 175 175 200 5 100 125 150 175 200 225 3 125 150 175 200 225 Other Sources of Funds 3 175 200 b 225 a. Premiums are based on two categories of sources of funds:

(1)The borrower's own funds or gifts from relatives and

(2)any other acceptable source. See HUD Handbook 4155.1 for guidance on acceptable sources of funds. b. A minimum decision credit score of 620 is required when downpayment funds come from a source other than the borrower or a relative of the borrower. Notes: 1. Annual premium rates are: 50 basis points for loans with 5 and 10 percent downpayments; 55 basis points for loans with 3 percent downpayments; and 25 basis points for all loans with amortization terms of 15 years or less. 2. Downpayment percentage is determined by the base loan-to-value ratio (LTV). The “base LTV” is calculated by:

(1)Dividing the base mortgage amount by the lesser of the sales price or appraised value of the property (for refinances, the base mortgage is divided by the appraised value of the property);

(2)subtracting the result from 1 (one); and

(3)multiplying by 100. “Base mortgage amount” is defined as the mortgage amount prior to adding any financed closing costs or upfront mortgage insurance. 3. Eligibility for the mortgage insurance premiums listed in the chart above is based on an applicant's decision credit score (FICO). A “decision credit score” is determined for each applicant according to the following guidelines: when three scores are available (one from each repository), the median (middle) value is used; when only two are available, the lesser of the two is chosen; when only one is available, then that score is used. If more than one individual is applying for the same mortgage, the lender should determine the decision credit score for each individual borrower and then average them to determine the final decision credit score for the application. That application “decision” credit score is then used to underwrite and determine if the mortgage is considered an acceptable risk. 4. Except as provided below, eligibility for these insurance premiums is dependent upon borrower acceptance by TOTAL (Technology Open to Approved Lenders). Therefore, all borrowers with valid credit scores must be scored by TOTAL. 5. Borrowers not scored by TOTAL or with insufficient trade lines to generate credit bureau scores are considered as “none” in the premium chart and are priced accordingly. Borrowers falling into cells with no premium price shown are not eligible for FHA-insured financing. 6. If TOTAL refers a loan for manual underwriting and the underwriter deems that there are sufficient compensating factors to create an acceptable risk to FHA, then the upfront insurance premium charge will be as shown on the premium chart. 7. These premiums apply to all purchase loans and to fully underwritten (non-streamline) refinance loans. Cash-out refinance loans must meet a minimum 5 percent equity requirement, based on the appraised value of the property. 8. Streamline refinance of an existing FHA loan for which a case number was assigned prior to January 1, 2008, will have an upfront premium of 100 basis points and an annual premium of 50 basis points. 9. First-time homebuyers who would otherwise pay an upfront premium of 225 basis points, but who complete pre-purchase homeownership counseling acceptable to the Secretary, will pay an upfront premium of no more than 200 basis points. II. Solicitation of Public Comments FHA welcomes comments on the risk-based premiums for a period of 30 days. The risk-based premiums are based on FHA insurance eligibility requirements as they exist at the time of publication of this notice. FHA's proposed rule on downpayment assistance, if issued in final, would affect the risk-based premiums proposal contained in this notice. Any changes made to the risk-based premiums in response to public comment will be announced through publication of a subsequent notice in the **Federal Register** . III. Findings and Certifications Environmental Review A Finding of No Significant Impact is not required for this notice. Under 24 CFR 50.19(b)(6), the subject matter of this notice is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332 *et seq.* ). Dated: September 13, 2007. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. 07-4651 Filed 9-17-07; 10:16 am]

Connectionstraces to 33

Traces to 33 documents

U.S. Code