[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41118-41124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14625]



[[Page 41117]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary 
Aluminum Production; Final Rule and Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 41118]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7225-6]
RIN 2060-AE77


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, the EPA issued national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants for secondary aluminum production under 
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action amends the 
standards to clarify compliance dates and defer certain early 
compliance obligations. These changes are being made as part of 
settlement agreements with industry trade associations, including the 
Aluminum Association and the American Foundrymen's Society. We are 
making these amendments by a direct final rule, without prior proposal, 
because we view these revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no 
adverse comments. In addition, because we are publishing a separate 
proposal which includes substantive clarifications and revisions of the 
standard, we believe it will prevent confusion and disruption if we 
defer any compliance obligations until after that separate rulemaking 
can be completed.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 13, 2002 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by July 15, 2002. 
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket No. A-2002-05, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket No. A-
2002-05, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact 
person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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: Comments. We are publishing this direct 
final rule without prior proposal because we view the amendments as 
noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. We consider 
these changes to be noncontroversial because the only effect is to 
defer certain early compliance obligations which might otherwise come 
due before we complete a separate rulemaking concerning substantive 
clarifications and revisions in the standards. The revisions adopted by 
this direct final rule retain the overall March 23, 2003 compliance 
date for existing sources. In the Proposed Rules section of this 
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to make the amendments to the standards for secondary 
aluminum production set forth in this direct final rule in the event 
that timely and significant adverse comments are received.
    If we receive any relevant adverse comments on one or more distinct 
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 today's 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 this direct 
final rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the 
administrative record compiled by EPA in the development of this direct 
final rule. 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 that 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. The docket number for this rulemaking is 
A-2002-05.
    Worldwide 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.
    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.

[[Page 41119]]

 
                                                     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.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of this 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 August 13, 2002. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only 
an objection to this direct final rule 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 this 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 for Secondary Aluminum Production
    A. How are we clarifying the compliance dates?
    B. How are we revising the requirements for submission of the 
OM&M plan?
    C. How are we revising the performance test requirements?
    D. How are we revising the requirements for the notification of 
compliance status?
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, 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 (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 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 subpart RRR to aluminum die casters and aluminum 
foundries which were considered during the initial rulemaking 
process. 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 
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 standards. 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 MACT (maximum 
available control technology) standards for these 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 standards for 
these 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) announcing new standards. However, during the process 
of preparing for information collection, the petitioners concluded that 
the existing rule was 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 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. These revisions are addressed in 
separate proposed rule amendments published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register.
    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

[[Page 41120]]

that the rulemaking on general applicability issues could be completed 
first. This is the only element of that settlement which is implemented 
by this direct 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 these comments addressed the only element 
in the settlement which is implemented by this direct final rule. After 
reviewing these comments, we decided to proceed with settlement. A copy 
of these comments and of our responses to them is available in Docket 
No. A-2002-05 for the separate proposed rule concerning the 
applicability changes.
    In entirely separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of 
the Aluminum Association case. That settlement requires that we propose 
a number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards. 
These substantive changes are addressed by the same proposed rule as 
the applicability changes for aluminum die casters and foundries, which 
is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The Aluminum 
Association settlement also requires that we clarify and simplify the 
compliance dates for the standards, and defer certain early compliance 
obligations until after the substantive rulemaking can be completed. 
These compliance issues are addressed by this direct 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). One adverse comment was 
received on that settlement, although the comment did not address the 
only element in the settlement which is implemented by this direct 
final rule. After reviewing the comment, we decided to proceed with 
settlement. A copy of the comment and of our response to the comment is 
available in Docket No. A-2002-05 for the separate proposed rule.

II. Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production

A. How Are We Clarifying the Compliance Dates?

    A number of provisions in the existing secondary aluminum rule 
require compliance on and after the date of a successful initial 
performance test. Our intent in adopting this general approach was to 
assure that compliance with the standards would begin as soon as the 
facility had demonstrated its ability to comply. However, this approach 
has created confusion concerning the date when compliance will be 
expected, particularly since an affected facility may be unable to 
finalize its required operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) 
plan until after evaluating the results of the initial performance 
test. This approach also may discourage facilities from conducting 
early performance tests, even though such early tests could facilitate 
identification and correction of problems before the compliance date.
    The amendments in this direct final rule revise Secs. 63.1505, 
63.1506, 63.1510, and 63.1511 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, to 
specify that existing affected sources must meet the emission 
limitations and comply with applicable monitoring requirements by the 
compliance date in Sec. 63.1501. If an initial performance test is 
required, the owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
conduct the test by the compliance date for existing affected sources 
in Sec. 63.1501(a). If an initial performance test is required for a 
new affected source, the owner or operator must conduct the test within 
90 days after the compliance date for new affected sources in 
Sec. 63.1501(b).
    The basic compliance dates for existing affected sources and new 
affected sources established by the current standards are not changed. 
Section 63.1501(a) of the rule sets the compliance date for existing 
affected sources at March 24, 2003 (3 years after promulgation). Under 
Sec. 63.1501(b), the compliance date for a new affected source that 
began construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 is March 
24, 2000 or the date of startup, whichever is later.
    A new paragraph (c) is being added to the compliance dates section 
(Sec. 63.1501) that defers the compliance date for a new affected 
source which is constructed or reconstructed at an existing aluminum 
die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility 
that is subject to the rule. This type of new affected source must 
comply by March 24, 2003 or upon startup, whichever is later. This 
deferral of the compliance date until the rest of the facility must 
comply will eliminate uncertainty and confusion by assuring that the 
separate rulemaking concerning the applicability criteria for aluminum 
die casters, foundries, and extruders will be completed before 
compliance obligations are determined.

B. How Are We Revising the Requirements for Submission of the OM&M 
Plan?

    The provisions in the existing rule pertaining to OM&M plans are 
ambiguous. Although the preamble to the final rule stated that 
submission of OM&M plans would be required 6 months before the 
compliance date, the rule itself did not require this. This direct 
final rule clarifies the timing for submission of the OM&M plan. In 
separate proposed rule amendments published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, we are clarifying the process for submission of OM&M 
plans to the permitting authority and for adoption of any necessary 
revisions of such plans.
    This action amends the standards to require the owner or operator 
of an existing affected source to submit the OM&M plan to the 
responsible permitting authority no later than the compliance date 
established by Sec. 63.1501(a). For a new affected source, the plant 
owner or operator must submit the OM&M plan within 90 days after a 
successful initial performance test or within 90 days after the 
compliance date established by Sec. 63.1501(b) if no initial 
performance test is required.

C. How Are We Revising the Performance Test Requirements?

    The existing rule contains provisions which have resulted in 
confusion regarding the timing of any required initial performance 
test. It was our intention to assure that the performance test would be 
completed before the compliance date, as indicated by the provisions in 
the existing rule requiring early compliance following a successful 
performance test. However, the existing rule also incorporates 
Sec. 63.7 of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which provides that performance tests must be completed within 180 days 
after the compliance date. We intended to adopt the general procedures 
established by Sec. 63.7(c) for preparation and approval of a site-
specific test plan and for actual conduct of the performance test, but 
not the timetable for the performance test established by Sec. 63.7(a). 
We are, therefore, adopting amendments to clarify our original intent.
    The amendments clarify Sec. 63.1511(a) to state that prior to 
conducting any performance test, the owner or operator must prepare a 
site-specific plan that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.7(c) and 
obtain approval of the plan according to the procedures in 
Sec. 63.7(c). The amendments also clarify Sec. 63.1511(b) to specify 
that the owner or operator must conduct any performance test required

[[Page 41121]]

for an existing affected source no later than the compliance date in 
Sec. 63.1501(a). If a performance test is required for a new affected 
source, the owner or operator must conduct the test within 90 days 
after the compliance date in Sec. 63.1501(b) of the rule. Because this 
timetable differs from the one established by the General Provisions, 
we are revising the table in appendix A to the rule, which shows which 
requirements of the General Provisions apply to affected sources.

D. How Are We Revising the Requirements for the Notification of 
Compliance Status?

    The amendments clarify the date by which the owner or operator must 
submit the notification of compliance status for an existing affected 
source and allow more time for submission of the report for a new 
affected source. Under Sec. 63.1515(b) of the existing rule, the owner 
or operator is required to submit the report within 60 days of the 
compliance date in Sec. 63.1501. The amendments clarify that the report 
for a plant with an existing affected source is required within 60 days 
after the compliance date in Sec. 63.1501(a). However, the report for a 
new affected source is required within 90 days after conducting the 
initial performance test or within 90 days after the compliance date in 
Sec. 63.1501(b) if no performance test is required. Because the period 
of time allowed for new affected sources differs in some instances from 
period provided by Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A (i.e., up to 60 days of the performance test), we 
are revising the table in appendix A to the rule, which shows which 
requirements of the General Provisions apply to affected sources.

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 direct 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 these amendments. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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.'' ``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.''
    These direct final rule amendments do not have tribal implications. 
They would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 
on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 
13175. No tribal governments own plants subject to the existing rule or 
proposed amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
these direct final rule amendments.

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, 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 considered by the Agency.
    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. This direct final rule is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 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

    This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it 
is 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,

[[Page 41122]]

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 one 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.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule does 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 one year, nor does the rule significantly or 
uniquely impact small governments, because it contains no requirements 
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, 
the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this direct final rule.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with today's direct final 
rule amendments. Because there is no cost associated with these 
amendments, the EPA has also determined that today's direct final rule 
amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. 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 direct 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.

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. 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. 1894.01. Copies of the ICR document may be obtained from Susan 
Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection 
Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, by email 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 provided 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    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. This direct final 
rule is 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, Hazardous substances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 31, 2002.
Christine Todd 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 with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003.

[[Page 41123]]

    (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 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) in subpart A of this part.
    (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

[[Page 41124]]

requirements and procedures set forth 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                                 initial performance
                                        Dates.                                            tests.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3).................  Notification of          Yes....................  Except Sec.  63.1515
                                        Compliance Status.                                establishes dates for
                                                                                          notification of
                                                                                          compliance status
                                                                                          reports.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-14625 Filed 6-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P