[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 179 (Thursday, September 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55491-55495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23643]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6869-3]
RIN 2060-AJ11
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Secondary Aluminum Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; applicability stay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing a rule to stay the
applicability of the national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Aluminum Production, as applied to
aluminum foundries and aluminum die casting facilities during the
pendency of a separate rulemaking to adopt alternate MACT requirements
for these sources. The EPA intends to take final action concerning this
proposed stay at the same time as it proposes to remove aluminum
foundries and aluminum die casting facilities from the present
secondary aluminum standard and to adopt alternate MACT requirements
deemed necessary and appropriate for these sources.
In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) published
elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is announcing its intention to
propose amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production to
remove aluminum foundries and aluminum die casting facilities from
those standards and to make a new determination concerning maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) requirements for major sources and
area sources in these industries.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 16,
2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention: Docket No. A-2000-35, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460. We request that a separate copy of each public
comment be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Docket. Docket No. A-2000-35 is available for public inspection and
copying from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except for
Federal holidays), at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket items.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
proposed rule, contact Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-1084,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect(TM) version
5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in
electronic form must note the docket number: A-2000-35. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Juan Santiago, U.S. EPA,
c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Room
740B, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
Regulated Entities
The regulated category and entities affected by this action
include:
[[Page 55492]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS Code SIC Code Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 331521 3363 Aluminum die casting facilities.
331524 3365 Aluminum foundry facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now
aware could potentially be affected by this action. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this proposed stay to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. What are we proposing?
II. Why are we taking this action?
III. Whom would this stay affect?
IV. What related actions is EPA undertaking?
V. What are the administrative requirements for this stay?
A. Execytuve Irder 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. What are we proposing?
Aluminum foundries and aluminum die casting facilities are subject
to the current NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production, 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRR. We are proposing to stay the applicability of subpart
RRR to sources in the aluminum foundry and aluminum die casting
industries during the pendency of a new rulemaking to remove these
sources from subpart RRR and to adopt alternate MACT requirements
deemed necessary and appropriate for such sources.
II. Why are we taking this action?
The EPA promulgated the NESHAP for the Secondary Aluminum
Production source category on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15690). As
promulgated, these standards apply to major and area source aluminum
foundries and aluminum die casting facilities, except for those
facilities that melt no materials other than clean charge and materials
generated within the facility and that also do not operate a thermal
chip dryer, sweat furnace or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating
kiln.
The EPA based the NESHAP for aluminum foundries and aluminum die
casting facilities, as well as its assessment of the economic impacts
on small businesses in these industry segments, on information
pertaining to representative facility practices in these industry
segments. We believed that the information in the record supporting our
NESHAP for secondary aluminum production facilities was representative
of the operations and range of emissions at aluminum die casting
facilities and aluminum foundries and sufficient to support the MACT
requirements we adopted in those standards for them, although we did
not have emissions data on dioxin and furan emissions specifically
measured at aluminum foundries and die casting facilities.
However, affected aluminum foundry operators and die casters have
expressed the view that the information and assumptions upon which we
relied when we promulgated the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP may
be incomplete or may not adequately represent the processes and
emissions at such facilities. Accordingly, EPA made a commitment as
part of the NESHAP for the Secondary Aluminum Production source
category to initiate a formal process to collect further information
from the facilities in these industries on the activities in which they
engage and the potential of these activities to contribute to HAP
emissions. EPA also published that, after evaluating this information,
it would make a new determination concerning MACT requirements for both
major sources and area sources in these industries. EPA has since
entered into a settlement agreement in American Foundrymen's Society,
et al. v EPA, Civ. No. 00-1208 (D.C. Cir.) that effectuates this
commitment in the preamble to the NESHAP for the Secondary Aluminum
Production source category.
The EPA intends to undertake a new rulemaking to remove aluminum
foundries and aluminum die casting facilities from subpart RRR and to
make a new determination concerning alternate MACT requirements deemed
necessary and appropriate for these sources in the context of a
separate source category. We intend to collect further information from
these facilities using our authority under CAA section 114 and to make
a new determination concerning the MACT floor and any MACT requirements
deemed necessary and appropriate for these facilities based on this
information. Our intention to proceed with this new MACT rulemaking is
expressly contingent on our ability to collect information concerning
the processes employed at these facilities and the associated
emissions, sufficient both to fully support establishment of a separate
MACT floor for such facilities and to resolve any remaining questions
regarding the practicality, cost, and efficacy of potential emission
controls.
In this action, EPA is proposing a rule to stay the applicability
of subpart RRR to aluminum foundries and aluminum die casting
facilities during the pendency of the rulemaking to make a new
determination concerning alternative MACT requirements for these
facilities. We intend to take final action concerning this proposed
stay at the same time as we propose to remove aluminum foundries and
aluminum die casting facilities from subpart RRR and to adopt
alternative MACT requirements deemed necessary and appropriate for
these facilities.
The EPA is proposing this applicability stay because it would make
no sense to require major and area sources at aluminum foundries and
aluminum die casting facilities to continue to plan for compliance with
the existing provisions of subpart RRR once EPA has made a new
determination of MACT requirements for these facilities and has
proposed to remove these facilities from subpart RRR. Assuming that the
information collection process can proceed expeditiously, we believe
that a new MACT floor for these facilities can be determined and
alternate MACT requirements deemed necessary and appropriate for
affected sources can be proposed before any facility would be legally
obligated to comply with the substantive controls required by subpart
RRR.
Any proposed rule to adopt an alternative NESHAP for aluminum
foundries and die casters will provide affected facilities with a
reasonable amount of time after the effective date of the promulgated
standards, and in no event less than one year, to come into compliance
with the final standards.
[[Page 55493]]
Aluminum foundries and die casters will also have a reasonable amount
of time to come into compliance with the existing NESHAP for secondary
aluminum production should EPA elect not to issue a proposed rule to
remove aluminum foundries and die casters from 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRR.
III. Whom would this stay affect?
When finalized, this proposed stay would affect those aluminum die
casting facilities and aluminum foundry facilities to which 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRR, presently applies. Specifically, this proposed stay
would affect existing aluminum die casting facilities and aluminum
foundry facilities that meet either, or both, of the following
descriptions:
Facilities that melt materials other than clean charge and
other than materials generated within the facility;
Facilities that operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat
furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
For the purposes of this proposed stay, aluminum die casting
facility means a facility that receives molten aluminum or melts solid
aluminum, such as aluminum ingots, billets, and/or scrap, and pours or
injects the molten metal into a permanent die to produce a casting.
Aluminum foundry facility means a facility that receives molten
aluminum or melts solid aluminum, such as aluminum ingots, billets,
and/or scrap, and pours molten metal into a mold to produce a casting.
IV. What related actions is EPA undertaking?
In an ANPR published elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is
announcing its intention to propose amendments to the Secondary
Aluminum Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, to remove
aluminum foundries and aluminum die casting facilities from that NESHAP
and to make a new determination concerning MACT requirements for major
sources and area sources in these industries.
In order to gather information supporting the new determination
concerning alternate MACT requirements for aluminum foundries and
aluminum die casting facilities, we intend to collect additional
information from individual companies and facilities on site-specific
operating practices, emissions, emission control devices, emission
control costs and applicable regulations, utilizing our authority under
CAA section 114. The EPA will seek approval for this information
collection effort from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
V. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Stay?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``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 entitlements, 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.
OMB has determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' because of novel legal or policy reasons. As such,
this action was submitted to OMB for review.
B. 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 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 Agency consults with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
Today's proposed stay 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 his proposed stay. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to today's action.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the
[[Page 55494]]
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's proposed stay does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or
operate sources subject to this proposed stay. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
today's action.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks 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 (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.
The 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. Today's proposed stay is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance, not health or safety risks. Furthermore, this proposed
rule has been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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
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 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 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 stay does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the
Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP for any year has been estimated to
be approximately $76.7 million (65 FR 15690, March 23, 2000), and
today's proposed stay does not add new requirements that would increase
this cost. Thus, today's proposed stay is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has
determined that this proposed stay contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because
it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed stay is not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA 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 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 proposed stay on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in
SIC code 3363 or 3365 that has as many as 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; 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 proposed stay on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA has
determined that none of the small entities will experience a
significant impact because the proposed stay imposes no additional
regulatory requirements on owners or operators of affected sources.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements
contained in the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control No. 2060-0433. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1894.01), and
a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, by email at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. Today's proposed
stay of the NESHAP will not increase the information collection burden
estimates made previously.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs all Federal
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of government-
unique standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material
specifications, test methods,
[[Page 55495]]
sampling and analytical procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies.
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations
when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The proposed stay does not involve the proposal of any new
technical standards or incorporate by reference existing technical
standards.
Dated: September 8, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-23643 Filed 9-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P