[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59787-59793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7382-4]
RIN 2060-AE78
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Secondary Aluminum Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 14, 2002, the EPA promulgated amendments to the
national emission standards for secondary aluminum production as a
direct final rule along with a parallel proposal to be used as a basis
for final action in the event we received any adverse comments. On
August 13, 2002, we withdrew the direct final rule amendments because
one commenter submitted adverse comments on certain amendments. This
action promulgates final amendments to the national emission standards
for secondary aluminum production based on the June 14, 2002 proposal
which accompanied the direct final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket A-2002-05, containing supporting information used in
developing these final rule amendments, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room B-108, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Minerals
and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C504-05), Emission Standards Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296, facsimile number
(919) 541-5600, electronic mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of the administrative record compiled by EPA in the
development of these final rule amendments. The docket is a dynamic
file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The
docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so they
can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated rules and their preambles, the contents of the
docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. Other
material related to this rulemaking is available for review in the
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the
WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at
EPA's web site provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN
is needed, call the TTN help line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of these final rule amendments is available only
by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by November 25, 2002. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rule
amendments that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by these final rule amendments may not be challenged
[[Page 59788]]
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are secondary aluminum production facilities (including those
collocated at primary aluminum production facilities) using clean
charge, post-consumer scrap, aluminum scrap, ingots, foundry returns,
dross, or molten metal as the raw material, and performing one or more
of the following processes: aluminum scrap shredding, scrap drying/
delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e.,
melting, holding, refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or
dross cooling. Affected sources at facilities that are major sources of
HAP are regulated under the final rule. In addition, emissions of
dioxins and furans from affected sources at facilities that are area
sources of hazardous air pollutants are also regulated. Regulated
categories and entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code SIC Code Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 331314 3341 Secondary smelting and alloying of
aluminum facilities.
Secondary aluminum production facility
affected sources that are collocated
at:
331312 3334 Primary aluminum production
facilities.
331315 3353 Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil
manufacturing facilities.
331316 3354 Aluminum extruded product
manufacturing facilities.
331319 3355 Other aluminum rolling and drawing
facilities.
331521 3363 Aluminum die casting facilities.
331524 3365 Aluminum foundry facilities.
State/local/tribal governments................ ........... ........... Not affected.
Federal government............................ ........... ........... Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1500 of the rule. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the contact person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this
preamble to these final rule amendments.
I. Background
II. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary
Aluminum Production
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On March 23, 2000, we promulgated the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production
(40 CFR 63, subpart RRR) at 63 FR 15710. These standards were
established under the authority of section 112(d) of the CAA to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from major and area
sources.
After promulgation of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production,
two petitions for judicial review of the standard were filed in the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first of these petitions was filed
by the American Foundrymen's Society, the North American Die Casting
Association, and the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society. American
Foundrymen's Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civ. No
00-1208 (D.C. Cir.). A second petition for judicial review was filed by
the Aluminum Association. The Aluminum Association v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 00-1211 (D.C. Cir.). There was no
significant overlap in the issues presented by the two petitions, and
the cases have never been consolidated. However, we did enter into
separate settlement discussions with the petitioners in each case.
The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability
of subpart RRR to aluminum die casters and aluminum foundries which
were first considered during the initial rulemaking. Because aluminum
die casters and foundries sometimes conduct the same type of operations
as other secondary aluminum producers, we originally intended to apply
the standards to these facilities, but only in those instances when
they conduct such operations. However, representatives of the affected
facilities argued that they should not be considered to be secondary
aluminum producers and should be wholly exempt from the rule. During
the rulemaking, we decided to permit die casters and foundries to melt
contaminated internal scrap without being considered to be secondary
aluminum producers, but their representatives insisted that too many
facilities would still be subject to the rule. At the time of
promulgation of the standards, in response to a request by the die
casters and foundries, we announced we would withdraw the standards as
applied to die casters and foundries and develop separate maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards for those facilities.
After the Foundrymen's case was filed, we negotiated an initial
settlement agreement in that case which established a process to
effectuate our commitment to develop new MACT standards. In that first
settlement, EPA agreed that it would stay the current standard for
those facilities, collect comprehensive data to support alternate
standards, and promulgate alternate standards. We then published a
proposal to stay the standards and an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) concerning new standards. However, during the process
of preparing for information collection, the petitioners concluded that
the present rule was not as sweeping in applicability as they had
feared, and the parties then agreed to explore an alternate approach to
settlement based
[[Page 59789]]
on clarifications of the current standards.
We subsequently reached agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners
on a new settlement. Pursuant to that settlement, we agreed to propose
changes in the applicability of the present standards which would
permit customer returns without solid paints or coatings to be treated
like internal scrap, and would permit facilities operated by the same
company at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of
determining what is internal scrap. Those revisions were addressed in a
separate proposed rule (67 FR 41125, June 14, 2002).
In the Foundrymen's settlement, we also agreed to defer the
compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at
existing aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and aluminum
extruders until the compliance date for existing sources so that the
related rulemaking on general applicability issues could be completed
first. This element of that settlement is the only one which is
implemented by this final rule.
As required by section 113(g) of the CAA, we provided notice and an
opportunity for comment concerning the Foundrymen's settlement (67 FR
9972, March 5, 2002). We received three adverse comments on the
settlement, although none of the comments addressed the only element in
the settlement which is implemented by this final rule. After reviewing
the comments, we decided to proceed with settlement. A copy of the
comments and our responses to them is available in the docket for this
rule.
In separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of the
Aluminum Association case. That settlement required that we propose a
number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards.
The substantive changes have been addressed in the same separate
proposed rule as the applicability changes for aluminum die casters and
foundries. The Aluminum Association settlement also required that we
propose to clarify and simplify the compliance dates for the standards
and to defer certain early compliance obligations until after the
substantive rulemaking can be completed. The compliance issues are
addressed by amendments in this final rule.
Pursuant to CAA section 113(g), we also provided notice and an
opportunity for public comment concerning the Aluminum Association
settlement (67 FR 16374, April 5, 2002). We received one adverse
comment concerning that settlement. After reviewing that comment, we
decided to proceed with settlement. A copy of that comment and our
response to it is available in the docket for this rule.
We originally published the amendments adopted by this final rule
as a direct final rule (67 FR 41118, June 14, 2002). The intent of
these amendments is to eliminate confusion and to clarify various
compliance dates in the promulgated standard, to encourage early
performance tests, and to permit some basic applicability questions for
aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders to be resolved before
the compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at
existing facilities. Therefore, we decided to utilize a direct final
rule so that these changes could become effective as quickly as
possible.
Along with the direct final rule, we published a proposed rule to
serve as the basis for final action in the event that we received any
adverse comment on the proposed rule. We received a letter from one
commenter expressing opposition to six of the amendments in the direct
final rule. We also received a letter from another commenter expressing
support for all of the amendments in the direct final rule. Because of
the receipt of adverse comment, we published a notice withdrawing the
direct final rule at 63 FR 52616. In view of the relationship between
those amendments concerning which we received adverse comment and some
of the remaining amendments, and to avoid the possibility of confusion
resulting from partial adoption of the amendments, we decided to
withdraw all amendments contained in the direct final rule. Today's
final rule amendments serve as our final administrative action
concerning all of the amendments set forth in the direct final rule and
parallel proposal.
II. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary
Aluminum Production
We received one letter in which a commenter expressed opposition to
six specific amendments set forth in the direct final rule. Our
responses to these adverse comments are set forth below. We also
received one other letter expressing support for all of the amendments
in the direct final rule. Both letters are available in the docket.
One of the commenters opposed the proposed new 40 CFR 63.1501(c),
which would defer the compliance date for affected sources which are
constructed or reconstructed at an existing aluminum die casting
facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extruder, and which meet the
current applicability criteria for the secondary aluminum standards,
until March 24, 2003 (the compliance date for existing sources) or
startup, whichever is later. The commenter stated that these sources
are able to achieve compliance with MACT as originally promulgated,
that any major sources excluded from the source category will still be
required to achieve a MACT level of control, and that, if EPA later
promulgates less stringent standards for these sources, they will be
permitted to demonstrate compliance with those standards.
We believe that the commenter misconstrued the very narrow purpose
of this provision. We proposed in a separate rulemaking at 63 FR 41118
to make some modest adjustments in the applicability criteria for
aluminum die casting facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum
extruders. Those proposed applicability changes would permit customer
returns without any solid paints or coatings to be treated like
internal scrap and would permit facilities operated by the same company
at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining
what is internal scrap in determining which facilities are subject to
the standards. The only purpose of the amendment in 40 CFR 63.1501(c)
is to defer the compliance date for affected sources which are
constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities until after the
scope of the applicability criteria has been clearly resolved. We do
not think it is reasonable to require sources which may no longer be
covered by the applicability criteria after we complete action on the
other rule proposed at 63 FR 41125 to undertake compliance activities
during this brief interim period. If the newly constructed or
reconstructed sources remain within the applicability criteria after
the separate rulemaking has been concluded, such sources will be
subject to the same substantive control requirements.
The same commenter also expressed opposition to the proposed
amendments to Sec. 63.1505(c), (d), (e), (f), and (k) that would
change the compliance date for certain existing sources to a single
certain date, rather than requiring compliance to begin immediately
after a successful performance test. The commenter opposed the changes
because they would permit facilities to shut down control devices even
though they have demonstrated the capacity to meet the standards.
While we understand the concern that reductions in HAP emissions
may be deferred by affected facilities, the commenter has not addressed
the reasons why we decided it is necessary to make these changes. The
change to a single definite compliance date for
[[Page 59790]]
certain existing sources is an integral part of a larger set of changes
which are intended to resolve confusion and facilitate rational
planning for compliance at the affected facilities. In particular, the
existing rule is confusing because a facility could be unable to
finalize its required operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M)
plan until after completing, and then evaluating the results, of an
initial performance test. The existing rule could also discourage
facilities from conducting early performance tests, even though such
early tests could facilitate identification and correction of problems
before the compliance date.
We did not receive adverse comment on any of the other amendments
previously set forth in the direct final rule. However, we decided to
withdraw all of the amendments, in view of the relationship between the
amendments concerning which we received adverse comment and some of the
remaining amendments, and the potential for confusion which would be
associated with partial promulgation. In today's action, we have
decided to adopt all of the amendments as proposed. We hereby
incorporate by reference the explanation we previously provided for
those amendments on which no adverse comment was received.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in
standards that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that these amendments do not constitute a ``significant
regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the above criteria.
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
These final rule amendments do not have federalism implications.
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and
local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be
subject to the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to these final rule amendments.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' These final rule amendments
do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to
the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final
rule amendments.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1)
is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13045, because they are not an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the rule and
amendments are based on technology performance and not on health or
safety risks.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use
These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
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, the
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 to 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 the 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 the 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 the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small
[[Page 59791]]
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 these final rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate,
or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the amendments
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply
to these final rule amendments.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule
amendments on small entities, small entities are defined as: (1) A
small business that has fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the intent of these amendments is to eliminate
confusion and to clarify various compliance dates in the promulgated
standard, to encourage early performance tests, and to permit some
basic applicability questions for aluminum die casters, foundries, and
extruders to be resolved before the compliance date for new sources
constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Today's action consists primarily of clarifications to the final rule
that impose no new information collection requirements on industry or
EPA. Therefore, the existing ICR has not been revised. However, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0433 (EPA ICR no.
1894.02). A copy of the ICR document may be obtained from Susan Auby by
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202)
566-1672. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
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 purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing 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 number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pubic Law No.
104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Because today's action contains no new test methods, sampling
procedures or other technical standards, there is no need to consider
the availability of voluntary consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. These final rule amendments are not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These amendments will be effective on
November 25, 2002.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 18, 2002.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RRR--[Amended]
2. Section 63.1501 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1501 Dates.
(a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must
comply
[[Page 59792]]
with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the owner
or operator of a new affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with the
requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2000 or upon startup,
whichever is later.
(c) The owner or operator of any affected source which is
constructed or reconstructed at any existing aluminum die casting
facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which
otherwise meets the applicability criteria set forth in Sec. 63.1500
must comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003 or
upon startup, whichever is later.
3. Section 63.1505 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and
(e);
b. Revising paragraph (f)(2); and
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (g), (h), and (k).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission
units.
* * * * *
(b) Aluminum scrap shredder. On and after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501, the owner or operator of an aluminum
scrap shredder at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere:
* * * * *
(c) Thermal chip dryer. On and after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501, the owner or operator of a thermal chip
dryer must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere
emissions in excess of:
* * * * *
(d) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. On and after the
compliance date established by Sec. 63.1501:
* * * * *
(e) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln: alternative
limits. The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln may choose to comply with the emission limits in this
paragraph (e) as an alternative to the limits in paragraph (d) of this
section if the scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln is equipped
with an afterburner having a design residence time of at least 1 second
and the afterburner is operated at a temperature of at least 750 [deg]C
(1400 [deg]F) at all times. On and after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501:
* * * * *
(f) Sweat furnace. * * *
(2) On and after the compliance date established by Sec. 63.1501,
the owner or operator of a sweat furnace at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major or area source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.80
nanogram (ng) of D/F TEQ per dscm (3.5 x 10-\10\ gr per
dscf) at 11 percent oxygen (O2).
(g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501, the owner or operator of a dross-only
furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major
source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
* * * * *
(h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501, the owner or operator of a rotary dross
cooler at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major
source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
* * * * *
(k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the compliance
date established by Sec. 63.1501, the owner or operator must comply
with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM and HCl
in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section for each secondary
aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility
that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with the
emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph
(k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1506 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1506 Operating requirements.
(a) Summary. (1) On and after the compliance date established by
Sec. 63.1501, the owner or operator must operate all new and existing
affected sources and control equipment according to the requirements in
this section.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1510 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1510 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Summary. On and after the compliance date established by Sec.
63.1501, the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or
emission unit must monitor all control equipment and processes
according to the requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements
for each type of affected source and emission unit are summarized in
Table 3 to this subpart.
(b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner
or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing
affected source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance,
and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator of an existing
affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting
authority no later than the compliance date established by Sec.
63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source must
submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority within 90
days after a successful initial performance test under Sec.
63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date established by
Sec. 63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is required. Each plan
must contain the following information:
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1511 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1511 Performance test/compliance demonstration general
requirements.
(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance
test required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare a
site-specific test plan which satisfies all of the requirements, and
must obtain approval of the plan pursuant to the procedures, set forth
in Sec. 63.7(c).
(b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as
described in Sec. 63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any existing
affected source for which an initial performance test is required to
demonstrate compliance must conduct this initial performance test no
later than the date for compliance established by Sec. 63.1501(a). The
owner or operator of any new affected source for which an initial
performance test is required must conduct this initial performance test
within 90 days after the date for compliance established by Sec.
63.1501(b). Except for the date by which the performance test must be
conducted, the owner or operator must conduct each performance test in
accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth
[[Page 59793]]
in Sec. 63.7(c). Owners or operators of affected sources located at
facilities which are area sources are subject only to those performance
testing requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners or operators of sweat
furnaces meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1) are not
required to conduct a performance test.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.1515 is amended by removing the first sentence in the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and adding, in its place, two new
sentences to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1515 Notifications.
* * * * *
(b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or
operator of an existing affected source must submit a notification of
compliance status report within 60 days after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501(a). Each owner or operator of a new
affected source must submit a notification of compliance status report
within 90 days after conducting the initial performance test required
by Sec. 63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date
established by Sec. 63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is
required. * * *
* * * * *
8. Appendix A to subpart RRR is amended by revising the entries for
Sec. 63.7(a)-(h) and Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3) to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)-(h)................. Performance Test Yes................ Except Sec. 63.1511
Requirements- establishes dates for
Applicability and Dates. initial performance
tests.
------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3).............. Notification of Compliance Yes................ Except Sec. 63.1515
Status. establishes dates for
notification of
compliance status
reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-24227 Filed 9-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P