[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53980-53986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20128]
[[Page 53979]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary
Aluminum Production; Direct Final Rule and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2004 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 53980]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0084; FRL-7808-2]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Secondary Aluminum Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, EPA promulgated national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and on September 24,
2002, and on December 30, 2002, we published final amendments to the
standards based on two separate settlement agreements. These amendments
further clarify regulatory text, correct errors, and improve
understanding of the rule requirements as promulgated. We are making
the amendments by direct final rule, without prior proposal, because we
view the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse
comments.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 2, 2004 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October
4, 2004 or if a public hearing is requested by September 13, 2004. If
EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register indicating which provisions will become effective and
which provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR-2002-0084. All documents in the docket are listed in the
EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
B102, 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 and
Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Wood, P.E., U.S. EPA,
Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C-504-05), Emission Standards
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5446,
facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. This action does not
affect the applicability of the existing rule as amended on December
30, 2002 (67 FR 79808). Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS
Category \1\ Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............. 331314 Secondary smelting and alloying of
aluminum facilities.
Secondary aluminum production facility
affected sources that are collocated
at:
331312 Primary aluminum production facilities.
331315 Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil
manufacturing facilities.
331316 Aluminum extruded product manufacturing
facilities.
331319 Other aluminum rolling and drawing
facilities.
331521 Aluminum die casting facilities.
331524 Aluminum foundry 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 regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1500 of the
secondary aluminum production NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's correcting amendments will also be
available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed rules or promulgated rules
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 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.
Comments. We are publishing the direct final rule without prior
proposal because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and do not
anticipate adverse comments. We consider the changes to be
noncontroversial because we are correcting errors in equations to
ensure that the proper units are used; correcting typographical and
printing errors; making minor changes for clarification and consistency
within the rule; and eliminating an erroneous reference to a reporting
requirement. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal in the event that timely and significant adverse comments are
received.
If we receive any relevant adverse comments on the amendments, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public which provisions will become effective and which provisions are
being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Any of
the distinct amendments in the direct final rule for which we do not
receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out
above. We will not institute a second comment period on the direct
final rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the direct final rule is available only by filing a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by November 2, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to the direct final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public
[[Page 53981]]
comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the direct final
rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this
preamble to this direct final rule.
I. Background
II. Amendments to the NESHAP
III. 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 Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On March 23, 2000 (63 FR 15690), we promulgated the NESHAP for
secondary aluminum production (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR). Those
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 standards 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 et al. v. U.S. EPA, 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. EPA, 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 thereafter enter into separate settlement discussions with the
petitioners in each case.
The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, to aluminum die casters and aluminum
foundries which were considered during the initial rulemaking
development. 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 those
facilities, but only in those instances where 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 secondary aluminum production
NESHAP. During the rulemaking development, 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 NESHAP. At 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
initial settlement, EPA agreed that it would stay the current standards
for those facilities, collect comprehensive data to support alternate
standards, and promulgate alternate standards. We then published a
proposal to stay the standards for those facilities (65 FR 55491,
September 14, 2000) and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
announcing new standards for aluminum die casters and foundries (65 FR
55489, September 14, 2000).
During the subsequent process of preparing for information
collection, the petitioners concluded that the existing standards were
not as sweeping in applicability as they had feared, and the parties
then agreed to explore an alternate approach to settlement based on
clarifications of the existing standards. We subsequently reached
agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners on a new settlement which
entirely supplanted the initial settlement. Accordingly, we published a
notice withdrawing the proposed stay of the existing standards for
aluminum die casters and foundries and announcing that we would take no
further action on new standards for those facilities (67 FR 41138, June
14, 2002).
In the new settlement, we agreed to propose some changes in the
applicability provisions of the existing standards concerning aluminum
die casters and foundries. The changes included permitting customer
returns without paints or solid coatings to be treated like internal
scrap, and permitting facilities operated by the same company at
different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining what
is internal scrap. The revisions of the applicability criteria were
proposed on June 14, 2002 (67 FR 41125) and adopted on December 30,
2002 (67 FR 79808).
In the new Foundrymen's settlement, we also agreed to defer the
compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at
existing aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders until the
compliance date for existing sources so that the rulemaking on general
applicability issues could be completed first. We took final action
concerning that element of the new Foundrymen's settlement in a final
rule published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 59787).
In entirely 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,
which were also adopted in the final rule on December 30, 2002 (67 FR
79808). The Aluminum Association settlement also required that we
clarify and simplify the compliance dates for the standards and defer
certain early compliance obligations which might otherwise come due
during the rulemaking process. We took final action concerning those
compliance issues in the final rule published on September 24, 2002 (67
FR 59787).
II. Amendments to the NESHAP
Today's direct final amendments revise the secondary aluminum
production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR) as follows:
In Sec. 63.1503, we are deleting the definition of
``Internal runaround'' and replacing it with the definition of
``Runaround scrap.''
In Sec. 63.1506, we are including units for emissions of
dioxin/furans (D/F) to clarify that the requirements for measurement of
feed/charge weight apply to facilities subject to emission limits for
D/F, as well as emission limits for other pollutants. The proper units
for measurement of D/F emissions for the standards are micrograms per
megagram ([mu]g/Mg) or grains per ton (gr/ton). We are also amending
the operating requirement for dross-only furnaces in Sec.
63.1506(i)(3) to be consistent with the definition for this type of
furnace in Sec. 63.1503. The revised requirement states that the owner
or
[[Page 53982]]
operator must operate each furnace using dross and salt flux as the
sole feedstock.
In Equation 4 of Sec. 63.1510, we are amending the
definition of ``Ti'' (the total amount of feed or aluminum
produced for the emission unit for the 24-hour period) in paragraph
(t)(4) to state the proper units. Because ``ERi'' (the
measured emission rate for the unit) can be either pounds per ton (lb/
ton) or [mu]g/Mg, the definition of ``Ti'' should be in
units of tons or Mg instead of only tons.
In Sec. 63.1512, we are amending paragraph (g) to state
that the testing for dross-only furnaces is to be performed while the
unit processes only dross and salt flux. This change will make the
testing requirement consistent with the definition of ``dross-only
furnace.''
In Sec. 63.1513, we are amending Equation 7 to apply only
to particulate matter (PM) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions and
adding a separate equation (7A) for computing D/F emissions in the
appropriate measurement units for the standards ([mu]g/Mg or gr/ton).
This change will avoid confusion that may result from the differences
in measurement units for D/F and PM or HCl.
In Sec. 63.1516, we are amending the requirements for the
semiannual excess emissions/summary report such that the owner or
operator must submit semiannual reports according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.10(e)(3), but the reports are due within 60 days after the
end of each 6-month period instead of within 30 days after the calendar
half as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v). When no deviations of
parameters have occurred, the owner or operator must submit a report
stating that no excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
We are also amending the certification requirements for dross-only
furnaces in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(ii) to state that only dross and salt
flux were used as the charge material during the reporting period. This
change will make the certification statement consistent with the
definition of ``dross-only furnace.''
In table 2 to subpart RRR, we are correcting a
typographical error and revising the measurement units cited for the
flux injection rate. The revised units for the flux injection rate are
kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) or (lb/ton) rather than pound per hour
(lb/hr).
The direct final amendments correct a typographical error in table
3 to subpart RRR, revise the table of contents to correct typographical
and printing errors, and also revise appendix A to subpart RRR (General
Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR) to add a note in the comment
column.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule 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.
It has been determined that the direct final amendments are not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and are therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements in the existing rule (subpart RRR) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB
control number 2060-0433. The direct final amendments have no impact on
the existing information collection burden estimates. Consequently, the
ICR has not been revised.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in conjunction with the direct final
amendments. The EPA has also determined that the amendments will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities and do not pose any requirements or costs on any firm, large
or small. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business whose parent company has fewer than 500 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; or (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 direct final
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
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, 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 by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by 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 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.
[[Page 53983]]
This action contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments. The EPA has determined that the direct final amendments do
not contain a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. No costs are
attributable to the amendments. In addition, the amendments do not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to the
direct final amendments.
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'' 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.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law
unless the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
The direct final amendments do not have federalism implications.
They do 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. None of the affected
plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the
direct final amendments.
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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The direct final amendments do not have tribal implications. They
do 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. No
tribal governments own plants subject to the existing rule or to the
direct final amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
the direct final amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we 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.
We interpret 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 direct final amendments
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the existing rule is
based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The direct final amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and 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 in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires
Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB,
with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA's response to the NTTAA requirements are discussed in the
preamble to the final rule (65 FR 15690, March 23, 2000). The direct
final amendments do not change the required methods or procedures.
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 action 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 correcting amendments in the Federal Register.
The direct final amendments are not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 25, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 53984]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RRR--[Amended]
Sec. 63.1503 [Amended]
0
2. Section 63.1503 is amended by removing the definition for the term,
``Internal runaround.''
0
3. Section 63.1506 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (i)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1506 Operating requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of each affected
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton)
or [mu]g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed/charge must:
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(3) Operate each furnace using dross and salt flux as the sole
feedstock.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1510 is amended by revising the definition of ``Ti'' for
Equation 4 in paragraph (t)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1510 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(t) * * *
(4) * * *
Where:
* * * * *
Ti = The total amount of feed, or aluminum produced, for emission unit
i for the 24-hour period (tons or Mg);
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1512 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1512 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements
and procedures.
* * * * *
(g) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure emissions of PM from each dross-only
furnace at the outlet of each control device while the unit processes
only dross and salt flux as the sole feedstock.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1513 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1513 Equations for determining compliance.
* * * * *
(b) PM, HCl and D/F emission limits. (1) Use Equation 7 of this
section to determine compliance with an emission limit for PM or HCl:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03SE04.018
Where:
E = Emission rate of PM or HCl, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C = Concentration of PM or HCl, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P = Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
(2) Use Equation 7A of this section to determine compliance with an
emission limit for D/F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03SE04.019
Where:
E = Emission rate of D/F, [mu]g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed;
C = Concentration of D/F, [mu]g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr); and
P = Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1516 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1516 Reports.
* * * * *
(b) Excess emissions/summary report. The owner or operator must
submit semiannual reports according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(e)(3). Except, the owner or operator must submit the semiannual
reports within 60 days after the end of each 6-month period instead of
within 30 days after the calendar half as specified in Sec.
63.10(e)(3)(v). When no deviations of parameters have occurred, the
owner or operator must submit a report stating that no excess emissions
occurred during the reporting period.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For each dross-only furnace: ``Only dross and salt flux were
used as the charge materials in any dross-only furnace during this
reporting period.''
* * * * *
0
8. Table 2 to Subpart RRR of Part 63 is amended by revising the
following ``Group 1 furnace'' entries to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Summary of Operating Requirements
for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source/emission Monitor type/ Operating
unit operation/process requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime- Bag leak detector or Initiate corrective
injected fabric filter action within 1-hr
(including those that are of alarm; operate
part of a secondary of such that alarm
aluminum processing unit).. does not sound more
than 5% of
operating time in 6-
month period;
complete corrective
action in
accordance with the
OM&M plan.b
COM................. Initiate corrective
action within 1-hr
of a 6-minute
average opacity
reading of 5% or
more; complete
corrective action
in accordance with
the OM&M plan.b
Fabric filter inlet Maintain average
temperature. fabric filter inlet
temperature for
each 3-hour period
at or below average
temperature during
the performance
test +14[deg]C
(+25[deg] F).
Reactive flux Maintain reactive
injection rate. flux injection rate
(kg/Mg) (lb/ton) at
or below rate used
during the
performance test
for each furnace
cycle.
[[Page 53985]]
Lime injection rate. Maintain free-
flowing lime in the
feed hopper or silo
at all times for
continuous
injection systems;
maintain feeder
setting at level
established at
performance test
for continuous
injection systems.
Maintain molten Operate sidewell
aluminum level. furnaces such that
the level of molten
metal is above the
top of the passage
between sidewell
and hearth during
reactive flux
injection, unless
the hearth is also
controlled.
Fluxing in sidewell Add reactive flux
furnace hearth. only to the
sidewell of the
furnace unless the
hearth is also
controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add- Reactive flux Maintain reactive
on controls (including injection rate. flux injection rate
those that are part of a (kg/Mg) (lb/ton) at
secondary aluminum or below rate used
processing unit). during the
performance test
for each operating
cycle or time
period used in the
performance test.
Site-specific Operate furnace
monitoring planc. within the range of
charge materials,
contaminant levels,
and parameter
values established
in the site-
specific monitoring
plan.
Feed material Use only clean
(melting/holding charge.
furnace).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a * * *
b OM&M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
c Site-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces
without control devices must include a section in their OM&M plan that
documents work practice and pollution prevention measures, including
procedures for scrap inspection, by which compliance is achieved with
emission limits and process or feed parameter-based operating
requirements. This plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the
monitoring plan must be developed in coordination with and approved by
the permitting authority.
0
9. Table 3 to Subpart RRR of Part 63 is amended by revising the ``Scrap
dryer'' entry to read as follows:
Table 3.--to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements
for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/ Monitoring
Affected source/emission unit operation/process requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ Afterburner Continuous
decoating kiln with afterburner operating measurement
and lime-injected fabric filter. temperature.. device to meet
specifications in
Sec.
63.1510(g)(1);
record
temperature for
each 15-minute
block; determine
and record 3-hr
block averages.
Afterburner Annual inspection
operation. of afterburner
internal parts;
complete repairs
in accordance
with the OM&M
plan.
Bag leak detector Install and
or. operate in
accordance with
``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak
Detection
Guidance c;
record voltage
output from bag
leak detector.
COM............... Design and Install
in accordance
with PS-1;
collect data in
accordance with
subpart A of 40
CFR part 63;
determine and
record 6-minute
block averages.
Lime injection For continuous
rate. injection
systems, inspect
each feed hooper
or silo every 8
hours to verify
that lime is free
flowing; record
results of each
inspection. If
blockage occurs,
inspect every 4
hours for 3 days;
return to 8-hour
inspections if
corrective action
results in no
further blockage
during 3-day
period, record
feeder setting
daily.
Fabric filter Continous
inlet measurement
temperature.. device to meet
specifications in
Sec.
63.1510(h)(2);
record
temperatures in
15-minute block
averages;
determine and
record 3-hr block
averages.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a * * *
b OM&M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
[[Page 53986]]
c Site-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces
without control devices must include a section in their OM&M plan that
documents work practice and pollution prevention measures, including
procedures for scrap inspection, by which compliance is achieved with
emission limits and process or feed parameter-based operating
requirements. This plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the
monitoring plan must be developed in coordination with and approved by
the permitting authority.
0
10. Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63 is amended by revising the
entry for Sec. 63.10(e)(3) to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart RRR--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart
RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Citation Requirement RRR Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............ Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports....... Yes.......... Reporting
deadline given
in Sec.
63.1516.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-20128 Filed 9-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P