[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41125-41136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14627]



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

[[Page 41125]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7225-5]
RIN 2060-AE77


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, the EPA issued national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants for secondary aluminum production 
facilities under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed 
rule would amend the applicability provisions for aluminum die casters, 
foundries, and extruders. This proposal would also add new provisions 
governing control of commonly-ducted units; revise the procedures for 
adoption of operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans; revise the 
criteria concerning testing of representative emission units; amend the 
standard for unvented in-line flux boxes; and clarify the control 
requirements for sidewell furnaces. These changes are being proposed 
pursuant to settlement agreements in two cases seeking judicial review 
of the secondary aluminum standards. Elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register, we are publishing a separate direct final rule and 
accompanying parallel proposal to clarify compliance dates and defer 
certain early compliance obligations which might otherwise come due 
while we are completing this rulemaking.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before August 13, 2002.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by June 28, 2002, a public hearing will be held on July 
12, 2002.

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-2002-06, 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-
2002-06, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. We request a separate copy of each public comment be sent to the 
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina or an alternative site nearby beginning at 10 a.m. Persons 
interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral 
testimony should notify Tanya Medley, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5422.
    Docket. Docket No. A-2002-06 contains supporting information used 
in developing the proposed amendments. The docket is located at the 
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, 
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Minerals 
and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (Mail Code 
C504-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296, electronic 
mail address, [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 [reg] file format. All comments and data submitted in 
electronic form must note the docket number: A-2002-06. 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 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: Roberto Morales, U.S. EPA, OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Attn: John Schaefer. 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 EPA, the information may be made available without 
further notice to the public.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the 
administrative record compiled by EPA in the development of the 
proposed rule amendments. The docket is a dynamic file because 
information is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries 
involved to readily identify and locate documents so they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of 
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other 
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of these actions will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed 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.
    Regulated Entities. The proposed amendments would change the 
applicability provisions of the NESHAP for three types of facilities: 
aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities (NAICS 331316/SIC 
3354), aluminum die casting facilities (NAICS 331521/SIC 3363), and 
aluminum foundry facilities (NAICS 331524/SIC 3365). Consequently, 
categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed action 
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.

[[Page 41126]]

 
                                                331315         3353  Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil
                                                                      manufacturing facilities.
                                                331319         3355  Other aluminum rolling and drawing
                                                                      facilities.
                                                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 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 
national emission standards for secondary aluminum production. 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.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
    A. How are we proposing to amend the applicability provisions?
    B. What amendments are we proposing concerning control of 
commonly-ducted units?
    C. How are we proposing to amend the procedures for adoption of 
an operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan?
    D. How are we proposing to amend the provisions concerning 
testing of representative emission units?
    E. How are we proposing to amend the standard for unvented in-
line flux boxes?
    F. How are we proposing to clarify the control requirements for 
sidewell furnaces?
    G. What other amendments are we proposing?
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. 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. et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. Background

    On March 23, 2000 (63 FR 15690), we promulgated the national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary 
aluminum production (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR). 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 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 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 these 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 
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 the time of promulgation of the standards, in 
response to a request by the die casters and foundries, we announced we 
would withdraw the standards as applied to die casters and foundries 
and develop separate maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
standards for 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 for these facilities (65 FR 55491, 
September 14, 2000) and an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPR) announcing new standards for these facilities (65 FR 55489, 
September 14, 2000).
    During the subsequent process of preparing for information 
collection, the petitioners concluded that the present rule was not as 
sweeping in applicability as they had feared, and the parties then 
agreed to explore an alternate approach to settlement based on 
clarifications of the current standards. We subsequently reached 
agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners on a new settlement which 
entirely supplants the prior settlement. Accordingly, we are publishing 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register a notice withdrawing the proposed 
stay of the present standards for aluminum die casters and foundries, 
and announcing that we are taking no further action on new standards 
for these facilities.
    In the new settlement, we agreed to propose some changes in the 
applicability provisions of the present standards concerning aluminum 
die casters and foundries. These changes include permitting customer 
returns without solid paints or 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. These revisions of the applicability criteria are 
included in this proposed rule.
    In the 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. That element of the

[[Page 41127]]

Foundrymen's settlement is incorporated in a direct final rule and 
parallel proposal published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    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. After reviewing these comments, we decided to proceed with 
settlement. A copy of these comments and of our responses to them is 
available in the docket for this proposed rule.
    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 
which are also addressed by this proposed rule. The Aluminum 
Association settlement also requires 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. These compliance issues are also addressed in the direct final 
rule and parallel proposal published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register.
    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-2002-06 for the separate proposed rule.

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

A. How Are We Proposing To Amend the Applicability Provisions?

    We originally intended to regulate aluminum die casting facilities, 
aluminum foundries, and aluminum extruders under subpart RRR only when 
they engage in the same types of operations as other secondary aluminum 
producers. We decided during rulemaking development that such 
facilities should be permitted to melt their own internally-generated 
scrap without being automatically treated the same as secondary 
aluminum producers, who typically process contaminated aluminum scrap 
obtained from other sources. Thus, Sec. 63.1500(d) in the current 
standards exempts such facilities if:
     The facility does not melt any materials other than clean 
charge and materials generated within the facility; and
     The facility does not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat 
furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
    However, it became apparent during discussions with representatives 
of these facilities that some aluminum die casting facilities that do 
not otherwise engage in secondary aluminum operations might fall within 
the rule solely because they melt certain materials which do not fit 
clearly within the phrase ``materials generated within the facility.'' 
In particular, some facilities routinely have defective or incorrect 
aluminum castings returned by customers and then remelt them. In 
addition, some companies conduct operations at multiple locations and 
may melt scrap initially generated at one location at a different 
location.
    To address these issues, we agreed to propose new applicability 
language which permits aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders 
to melt customer returns which contain no paint or other solid coatings 
without thereby becoming subject to the standards. We also agreed to 
propose a new definition of internal scrap which includes all scrap 
originating from aluminum castings or extrusions that remains at all 
times within the control of the company that produced the castings or 
extrusions. We do not regard either of these changes in the 
applicability language as materially altering our original intent to 
only cover those aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders who 
conduct secondary aluminum operations. Under the language we are 
proposing, customer returns would not qualify if they have been painted 
or are contaminated with other solid coatings because these castings 
would normally require prior cleaning to avoid excess emissions. 
Moreover, scrap obtained from an external source does not qualify 
unless it fits within the definition of clean charge.
    We are proposing changes in the existing definitions of ``secondary 
aluminum production facility,'' ``clean charge,'' ``internal 
runaround'' (now called ``runaround scrap''), and ``thermal chip 
dryer,'' as well as adding new definitions of ``customer returns'' and 
``internal scrap.'' In the aggregate, these revisions clarify the 
circumstances when aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders would 
be considered to be secondary aluminum production facilities and, thus, 
within the applicability of the rule.
    We are also proposing to add a new section to the general 
applicability provisions which permits aluminum die casters, foundries, 
and extruders which are area sources to operate thermal chip dryers 
subject to the requirements of the rule without automatically 
subjecting their furnace operations to the rule. We agreed to propose 
this change to eliminate an incentive which might otherwise exist for 
small facilities, which are otherwise outside the applicability of the 
rule, to discontinue their use of chip dryers. As long as such chip 
dryers are operated in conformity with the rule, we think their use 
will promote safety and lower emissions at some small operations.
    We are mindful that some may question why contaminated internal 
scrap generated by aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders 
should be treated differently than external scrap with similar 
contamination levels which is processed by the secondary aluminum 
industry. We stress that the decision we made during the original 
secondary aluminum rulemaking process to make this distinction was 
based on the qualitative differences in the operations being undertaken 
by the facilities in question, rather than on any conclusions regarding 
the likely magnitude of emissions from such operations. Moreover, we 
think that the additional revisions and clarifications of applicability 
for aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders which we have agreed 
to make are reasonable clarifications and fully consistent with that 
original decision.

B. What Amendments Are We Proposing Concerning Control of Commonly-
Ducted Units?

    The current rule permits secondary aluminum producers to combine 
existing group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a particular 
facility in a ``secondary aluminum processing unit'' or SAPU. The 
facility can then demonstrate compliance by determining the permissible 
emissions for the entire SAPU and then controlling emissions for the 
SAPU to that level. This broader definition of the affected source 
which must be controlled gives a secondary aluminum production facility 
added flexibility in fashioning the most cost-effective control 
strategies which will meet the standards.
    The existing rule also permits new group 1 furnaces and new in-line 
fluxers to be included in a new SAPU. However, it does not afford a 
facility the latitude to combine new and existing sources in the same 
SAPU. This is

[[Page 41128]]

because the respective standards for existing sources and new sources 
are separate legal requirements, and we construe the CAA to require 
that standards be separately applied to all affected units.
    Because the standards for an existing SAPU and the standards for a 
new SAPU happen to be identical in this instance, the legal constraints 
on combining existing emission units with new emission units have been 
understandably frustrating to some facilities. Moreover, in some 
facilities it may make the most sense from an engineering perspective 
to manifold emissions from units which are subject to differing 
standards to the same emission control device. In order to help 
facilities meet the standards in the most efficient and cost-effective 
manner, we agreed to develop and propose some additional language 
pertaining to commonly-ducted units. The new language reflects two 
different approaches to this problem. A facility subject to the 
standards may use either approach or both approaches if it wishes.
    First, the proposed amendments would add a new paragraph to 
Sec. 63.1505(k) for SAPU. The new paragraph (k)(6) would allow the 
owner or operator to redesignate any existing group 1 furnace or in-
line fluxer at a secondary aluminum processing facility as a new 
emission unit. Any redesignated emission unit may then be included in a 
new SAPU at that facility. Any such redesignation (which would require 
prior approval of the responsible permitting authority) would only 
apply under subpart RRR and would be irreversible.
    Second, we are also adding new language which clarifies the 
procedures by which units which are subject to differing standards but 
are manifolded to the same control device can demonstrate compliance. 
We believe that this new language is not required to permit this type 
of combined compliance demonstration, but we think it will give useful 
additional guidance to permitting authorities in establishing sound and 
defensible procedures for documenting compliance when units are 
commonly-ducted but subject to separate standards.
    We are proposing to add two new paragraphs to Sec. 63.1511 
pertaining to compliance demonstrations for commonly-ducted units. The 
first of these paragraphs simply confirms other provisions of the rule 
which provide that aggregate emissions can be measured to demonstrate 
compliance for all emission units within a SAPU.
    The second new paragraph covers those situations where commonly-
ducted units are not within a single existing or new SAPU. In this 
instance, the following criteria would apply:
     Testing must be designed to verify that each affected 
source or emission unit individually satisfies all applicable emission 
requirements.
     Emissions must be tested at the outlet of each individual 
affected source or emission unit while it is operating under the 
highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur, prior to the 
point that the emissions are combined with those from other affected 
sources or emission units.
     Combined emissions for the affected sources and emission 
units must be tested at the outlet of the control device while they are 
operating simultaneously under the highest load or capacity reasonably 
expected to occur.
     When determining compliance for a commonly-ducted unit, 
emissions of a particular pollutant from the individual unit would be 
presumed to be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of 
that pollutant from all commonly-ducted units.

C. How Are We Proposing to Amend the Procedures for Adoption of an 
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan?

    In a direct final rule and parallel proposal published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, we are clarifying the timing of submission of 
an operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan to the permitting 
authority, which is ambiguous in the existing rule. In this action, we 
are proposing to clarify the procedures by which a facility submits an 
OM&M plan to the permitting authority and by which the permitting 
authority can require any necessary revisions of the plan.
    Section 63.1505(k) of the existing rule refers to approval of an 
OM&M plan by the permitting authority, and the necessary elements of an 
OM&M plan are described in Sec. 63.1510(b), but the procedures for 
submission and approval of the plan are not specified. We are proposing 
an amendment to correct that omission.
    Under the proposed amendments, the facility would be required to 
certify that the OM&M plan it is submitting complies with all 
requirements of the standards and complies with the OM&M plan as 
submitted to the permitting authority, unless and until the plan is 
revised. If the permitting authority determined that any revisions of 
the plan are necessary to satisfy the requirements of the standards, 
the facility would be required to promptly make all necessary revisions 
and resubmit the revised plan. If the facility itself determined that 
revisions of the OM&M plan are necessary, such revisions would not 
become effective until the owner or operator submitted a description of 
the changes and a revised plan incorporating them to the permitting 
authority. These same general procedures would also apply to the site-
specific monitoring plan, which is one element of the OM&M plan.

D. How Are We Proposing to Amend the Provisions Concerning Testing of 
Representative Emission Units?

    Section 63.1511(f) of the existing rule establishes a procedure 
which permits a secondary aluminum production facility to test a 
representative group 1 furnace or in-line flux box in order to 
determine the emission rate for other units of the same type at that 
facility. We are proposing to clarify the criteria for demonstrating 
compliance by testing of representative emission units.
    In particular, the existing rule provides that the emission unit 
being tested must use ``identical feed/charge and flux materials in the 
same proportions'' as those emission units it represents. Industry 
representatives have expressed concern that this language could be 
given an unduly restrictive construction. To clarify our original 
intent, we are proposing to amend the criteria to require ``feed 
materials and charge rates which are comparable'' and ``the same type 
of flux materials in the same proportions'' as the emission units the 
tested unit represents.

E. How Are We Proposing To Amend the Standards for Unvented In-Line 
Flux Boxes?

    The existing rule requires that all in-line flux boxes meet the 
same emission standards and be tested in the same manner. Industry 
representatives have argued that the testing procedures in the rule are 
not practicable for in-line flux boxes which are unvented (units which 
have no ventilation ductwork manifolded to an outlet or emission 
control device). Documenting compliance with the particulate matter 
(PM) standard for such units might require construction of a temporary 
enclosure around the unit to capture and measure emissions.
    Industry representatives have also argued that the emissions of 
hydrogen chloride (HCl) and PM from such units are intrinsically low, 
but we believe it is quite possible for the HCl emissions from such 
units to exceed the applicable standards. The existing rule provides a

[[Page 41129]]

procedure by which a facility can demonstrate compliance for HCl by 
limiting its use of reactive chlorine flux and then assuming that all 
chlorine used is emitted as HCl. However, because of the greater 
complexity of the reactions which generate PM emissions, there is no 
analogous procedure for PM.
    While we do not agree with the industry that all emissions from 
unvented in-line flux boxes are intrinsically low, we do agree that the 
physical characteristics of these units and the nature of the reactions 
that generate PM mean that we can reliably conclude that an unvented 
unit which demonstrates compliance with the emission standards for HCl 
by limiting reactive chlorine flux will also be in compliance with the 
emission standards for PM. Therefore, we are proposing to add new 
language to Sec. 63.1512(h) which will permit a facility with an 
unvented in-line flux box, which demonstrates compliance with the 
emission standards for HCl by limiting use of reactive chlorine flux, 
to infer compliance with the emission standards for PM as well. This 
would give facilities an alternative to testing of actual emissions, 
which could require costly construction of an enclosure around the unit 
or other engineering modifications. In such circumstances, the facility 
would be required to use the maximum permissible PM emission rate for 
the flux box when determining the total emissions for any secondary 
aluminum processing unit which includes the flux box.

F. How Are We Proposing To Clarify the Control Requirements for 
Sidewell Furnaces?

    Industry representatives have pointed out that the existing 
Sec. 63.1506(m)(6) includes language that could require installation of 
an additional control device on sidewell furnaces whenever the level of 
molten metal is permitted to fall below the passage between the 
sidewell and the hearth, or reactive flux is added in the hearth. While 
we believe that a control device will sometimes be necessary in these 
circumstances, this result was not our intent.
    As indicated in the preamble to our original proposal, we believe 
that there is a potential for additional emissions if the level of 
molten metal is permitted to fall below the top of the passage between 
the sidewell and the hearth, or if reactive flux is added in the 
hearth. Therefore, if these events occur, the emissions from both the 
sidewell and the hearth must be captured and tested in order to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards. If the 
emission tests show that a control device is necessary to attain 
compliance, it must be installed. We are proposing to revise the 
language in question to clarify our intent.
    In addition, we are proposing to amend Sec. 63.1505(i)(7) to 
correct an erroneous cross-reference. As amended, certain sidewell 
group 1 furnaces would be required to meet the limits in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (4) rather than (j)(1) through (4).

G. What Other Amendments Are We Proposing?

    We are proposing to amend Sec. 63.1510(w) to clarify the procedures 
for obtaining approval of alternative monitoring methods. The new 
language makes it clear that this section refers to alternative 
monitoring methods other than those which may be separately authorized 
pursuant to Sec. 63.1510(j)(5) or Sec. 63.1510(v).
    We are also proposing to clarify the recordkeeping requirements for 
in-line fluxers which do not use reactive flux. Section 63.1517(b)(11) 
would be amended to permit the facility to document that a particular 
in-line fluxer does not use reactive flux using operating logs that 
show that no source of reactive flux was present, labels that prohibit 
use of reactive flux, or operating logs which document the fluxes used 
during each operating cycle.
    We are proposing to amend Sec. 63.1505(f)(1), which establishes 
emission standards for sweat furnaces, to correct an erroneous 
residence time.
    We are proposing to clarify the definition of a melting/holding 
furnace in Sec. 63.1503.
    We are also proposing minor amendments to correct printing or 
technical errors in the final rule. These include:
     Revising Tables 2 an 3 of subpart RRR to correct entries 
which were inadvertently printed in the wrong columns.
     Republishing Equation 2 of Sec. 63.1505(k)(2) to clearly 
display the HC1 emission limit (LcHC1).
     Revising the entry for Sec. 63.14 in appendix A to subpart 
RRR to include incorporation by reference for a second document.
     Clarifying the rule requirement that both major and minor 
sources must keep a copy of the OM&M on-site by deleting language in 
Sec. 63.1517(b)(16)(ii) that requires only major sources to keep a copy 
of the OM&M plan on-site.

III. Administrative Requirements

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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that the proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' and was not submitted to OMB for review.

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.''
    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.
    These proposed rule amendments do not have federalism implications. 
They

[[Page 41130]]

would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 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 these 
proposed rule amendments.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``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 proposed 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 proposed 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.
    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 proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures 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.
    The EPA has determined that these proposed rule 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 these proposed amendments. In addition, these proposed 
amendments would 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 these amendments.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 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 not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule 
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business whose parent company 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; 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.
    As discussed in the preamble to the final rule (65 FR 15690), 
subpart RRR was projected to potentially impact firms producing 
products in SIC codes 3341 (secondary smelting and refining of 
nonferrous metals), 3353 (aluminum sheet, plate, and foil), 3334 
(primary aluminum production), 3354 (aluminum extruded products), 3363 
(aluminum die casting), 3365 (aluminum foundries), 4953 (refuse 
systems--materials recovery facilities), 5093 (scrap and waste 
materials), and 5015 (motor vehicle parts--used). The EPA concluded 
that the existing rule would not result in a significant economic 
impact for a substantial number of small entities. This assessment was 
based on information on representative facility practices provided to 
EPA by these industries. For more detailed information, please see 
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Final 
Report,'' October 1999 (Docket A-92-61).
    Following promulgation of subpart RRR, affected facilities in the 
aluminum die casting and foundry industries expressed concern that the 
information and assumptions upon which EPA has relied may be incomplete 
or may not

[[Page 41131]]

adequately represent the facilities and emissions.
    There are 320 aluminum die casting companies and approximately 
1,530 aluminum foundries currently operating domestically. The vast 
majority of these firms are small businesses employing less than 500 
employees. No small businesses within aluminum die casting companies or 
aluminum foundries were specifically identified that are impacted by 
the final rule. Many of these firms would be exempt from the final rule 
for the reasons discussed in the Economic Impact Analysis document.
    The proposed amendments do not create any new costs on affected 
firms, large or small. In fact, the proposed amendments would 
substantially reduce the economic impact on small businesses because of 
the exemption for die casters, extruders, and foundries. Because these 
plants will not incur any significant costs or economic impact, EPA 
determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility 
analysis, and the Administrator certifies that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in subpart RRR have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The proposed amendments would not 
change the information collection requirements in subpart RRR, but 
would reduce the number of facilities subject to the rule. An amended 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. --------), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail 
at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy 
may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov.icr. By 
U.S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, 
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the 
ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 (202) 
566-1700.
    The information requirements in the existing rule include mandatory 
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information requirements 
are needed to confirm the compliance status of major sources, to 
identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards and any new 
or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, and to confirm that 
emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained. 
Based on the recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which 
facilities, records, or processes should be inspected. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized 
under section 114 of the CAA. All information submitted to EPA for 
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according 
to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Under the proposed amendments, fewer facilities would be subject to 
the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. For 
this reason, the overall burden estimate for the existing rule would be 
reduced by approximately 20 percent.
    As a result of these proposed amendments, the annual public 
reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information 
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) 
is estimated to decrease by 28,000 labor hours per year and $8.5 
million per year. Total capital costs associated with monitoring 
requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR remain unchanged at an 
estimated $1.3 million; this estimate includes the capital and startup 
costs associated with installation of monitoring equipment.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose 
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 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 NTTTA requirements are discussed in the 
preamble to the final rule (65 FR 15690). The proposed amendments do 
not change the required methods or procedures, but would expand 
provisions for the use of alternative methods. If a plant wishes to use 
an alternative method other than those identified in the existing rule, 
the owner or operator may submit an application to EPA according to the 
procedures described in the existing rule.

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    These proposed rule 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.

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 proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

[[Page 41132]]

Subpart RRR--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.1500 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Removing existing paragraph (d);
    c. Redesignating existing paragraphs (e) and (f) as (d) and (e); 
and
    d. Adding new paragraph (f).
    The addition and revision reads as follows:


Sec. 63.1500  Applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator 
of each secondary aluminum production facility as defined in 
Sec. 63.1503.
* * * * *
    (f) An aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum 
extrusion facility shall be considered to be an area source if it does 
not emit, or have the potential to emit considering controls, 10 tons 
per year or more of any single listed HAP or 25 tons per year of any 
combination of listed HAP from all emission sources which are located 
in a contiguous area and under common control, without regard to 
whether or not such sources are regulated under this subpart or any 
other subpart. In the case of an aluminum die casting facility, 
aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which is an area 
source and is subject to regulation under this subpart only because it 
operates a thermal chip dryer, no furnace operated by such a facility 
shall be deemed to be subject to the requirements of this subpart if it 
melts only clean charge, internal scrap, or customer returns.
    3. Section 63.1503 is amended by:
    a. Adding in alphabetical order new definitions for the terms 
``aluminum scrap,'' ``customer returns,'' ``internal scrap,'' and 
``runaround scrap''; and
    b. Revising definitions for the terms ``clean charge,'' ``cover 
flux,'' ``group 1 furnace,'' ``group 2 furnace,'' ``melting/holding 
furnace,'' ``reactive fluxing,'' ``scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln,'' ``secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU),'' 
``secondary aluminum production facility,'' and ``thermal chip dryer.''
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1503  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Aluminum scrap means fragments of aluminum stock removed during 
manufacturing (i.e., machining), manufactured aluminum articles or 
parts rejected or discarded and useful only as material for 
reprocessing, and waste and discarded material made of aluminum.
* * * * *
    Clean charge means furnace charge materials including molten 
aluminum; T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; aluminum 
scrap known by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints, 
coatings, and lubricants; uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have 
been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum 
scrap dried at 343  deg.C (650  deg.F) or higher; aluminum scrap 
delacquered/decoated at 482  deg.C (900  deg.F) or higher, and 
runaround scrap.
    Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a 
group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of the molten aluminum, 
for the purpose of preventing oxidation.
    Customer returns means any aluminum product which is returned by a 
customer to the aluminum company that originally manufactured the 
product prior to resale of the product or further distribution in 
commerce, and which contains no paint or other solid coatings (i.e., 
lacquers).
* * * * *
    Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or 
processes aluminum that contains paint, lubricants, coatings, or other 
foreign materials with or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean 
charge with reactive fluxing.
    Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or 
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs 
fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating 
gases or agents.
* * * * *
    Internal scrap means all aluminum scrap regardless of the level of 
contamination which originates from castings or extrusions produced by 
an aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum 
extrusion facility, and which remains at all times within the control 
of the company that produced the castings or extrusions.
* * * * *
    Melting/holding furnace means a group 1 furnace that processes only 
clean charge, performs melting, holding, and fluxing functions, and 
does not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace except for 
purposes of alloy changes, off-specification product drains, or 
maintenance activities.
* * * * *
    Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux 
(other than cover flux) that results in a HAP emission. Argon and 
nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAP.
* * * * *
    Runaround scrap means scrap materials generated on-site by aluminum 
casting, extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/stamping, 
cutting, and trimming operations and that do not contain paint or solid 
coatings. Uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips generated by turning, 
boring, milling, and similar machining operations may be clean charge 
if they have been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner, 
but are not considered to be runaround scrap.
    Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit used 
primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint, 
lacquer, ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including 
used beverage containers) prior to melting.
    Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU). An existing SAPU means 
all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a 
secondary aluminum production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace 
or existing in-line fluxer is considered an emission unit within a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of 
individual group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a secondary 
aluminum processing facility which either were constructed or 
reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently 
redesignated as new emission units pursuant to Sec. 63.1505(k)(6). Each 
of the group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new SAPU is 
considered an emission unit within that secondary aluminum processing 
unit.
    Secondary aluminum production facility means any establishment 
using clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum production, 
as the raw material and performing one or more of the following 
processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, 
thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, 
sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of aluminum from 
dross, in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. A secondary aluminum 
production facility may be independent or part of a primary aluminum 
production facility. For purposes of this subpart, aluminum die casting 
facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extrusion facilities are 
not considered to be secondary aluminum production facilities if the 
only materials they melt are clean charge, customer returns, or 
internal scrap, and if they do not operate sweat furnaces, thermal chip 
dryers, or scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns. The 
determination of whether a facility is a secondary aluminum production 
facility is only for purposes of this subpart and any regulatory

[[Page 41133]]

requirements which are derived from the applicability of this subpart, 
and is separate from any determination which may be made under other 
environmental laws and regulations, including whether the same facility 
is a ``secondary metal production facility'' as that term is used in 42 
U.S.C. 7479(1) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(A) (``prevention of 
significant deterioration of air quality'').
* * * * *
    Thermal chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate oil 
or oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips. Pre-
heating boxes or other dryers which are used solely to remove water 
from aluminum scrap are not considered to be thermal chip dryers for 
purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1505 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising paragraph (f)(1);
    c. Revising paragraph (i)(7);
    d. Republishing the introductory text of paragraph (k)(2) and 
revising Equation 2; and
    e. Adding new paragraph (k)(6).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec. 63.1505  Emission standards for affected sources and emission 
units.

* * * * *
    (f) Sweat furnace. * * *
    (1) The owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard of paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section, provided that, on and after the compliance date 
of this rule, the owner or operator operates and maintains an 
afterburner with a design residence time of 0.8 seconds or greater and 
an operating temperature of 1600  deg.F or greater.
* * * * *
    (i) Group 1 furnace. * * *
    (7) The owner or operator of a sidewell group 1 furnace that 
conducts reactive fluxing (except for cover flux) in the hearth, or 
that conducts reactive fluxing in the sidewell at times when the level 
of molten metal falls below the top of the passage between the sidewell 
and the hearth, must comply with the emission limits of paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (4) of this section on the basis of the combined 
emissions from the sidewell and the hearth.
* * * * *
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. * * *
    (2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of HCl in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JN02.000

* * * * *
    (6) With the prior approval of the responsible permitting 
authority, an owner or operator may redesignate any existing group 1 
furnace or in-line fluxer at a secondary aluminum production facility 
as a new emission unit. Any emission unit so redesignated may 
thereafter be included in a new SAPU at that facility. Any such 
redesignation will be solely for the purpose of this MACT standard and 
will be irreversible.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1506 is amended by:
    a. Removing existing paragraph (a)(2);
    b. Redesignating existing paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) as 
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4); and
    c. Revising paragraphs (m)(6)(i) and (ii).
    The revisions read as follows.


Sec. 63.1506  Operating requirements.

* * * * *
    (m) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. * * 
*
    (6) * * *
    (i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage 
between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless 
emissions from both the sidewell and the hearth are included in 
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.
    (ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell, unless emissions 
from both the sidewell and the hearth are included in demonstrating 
compliance with all applicable emission limits.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.1510 is amended by:
    a. Removing the last sentence in the introductory text of paragraph 
(b), ``Each plan must contain the following information'', and adding, 
in its place, five new sentences;
    b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (o)(1); and
    c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (w).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * The plan must be accompanied by a written certification 
by the owner or operator that the OM&M plan satisfies all requirements 
of this section and is otherwise consistent with the requirements of 
this subpart. The owner or operator must comply with all of the 
provisions of the OM&M plan as submitted to the permitting authority, 
unless and until the plan is revised in accordance with the following 
procedures. If the permitting authority determines at any time after 
receipt of the OM&M plan that any revisions of the plan are necessary 
to satisfy the requirements of this section or this subpart, the owner 
or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the 
revised plan. If the owner or operator determines that any other 
revisions of the OM&M plan are necessary, such revisions will not 
become effective until the owner or operator submits a description of 
the changes and a revised plan incorporating them to the permitting 
authority. Each plan must contain the following information:
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the 
responsible permitting authority, a written site-specific monitoring 
plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the 
permitting authority as part of the OM&M plan. The site-specific 
monitoring plan must contain sufficient procedures to ensure continuing 
compliance with all applicable emission limits and must demonstrate, 
based on documented test results, the relationship between emissions of 
PM, HCl, and D/F and the proposed monitoring parameters for each 
pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM, HCl, and 
D/F that will be emitted from the furnace. This may be determined by 
conducting performance tests and monitoring operating parameters while 
charging the furnace with feed/charge materials containing the highest 
anticipated levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest 
anticipated rate. If the permitting authority determines that any 
revisions of the site-specific monitoring plan are necessary to meet 
the requirements of this section or this subpart, the owner or operator 
must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised 
plan to the permitting authority.
* * * * *
    (w) Alternative monitoring methods. If an owner or operator wishes 
to use an alternative monitoring method to demonstrate compliance with 
any emission standard in this subpart, other than those alternative 
monitoring methods which may be authorized pursuant to paragraph (j)(5) 
and (v) of this section, the owner or operator may submit an 
application to the Administrator. Any such application will be 
processed according to the

[[Page 41134]]

criteria and procedures set forth in paragraphs (w)(1) through (6) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.1511 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding 
paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) Testing of representative emission units. With the prior 
approval of the permitting authority, an owner or operator may utilize 
emission rates obtained by testing a particular type of group 1 furnace 
which is not controlled by any add-on control device, or by testing an 
in-line flux box which is not controlled by any add-on control device, 
to determine the emission rate for other units of the same type at the 
same facility. Such emission test results may only be considered to be 
representative of other units if all of the following criteria are 
satisfied:
    (1) The tested emission unit must use feed materials and charge 
rates which are comparable to the emission units that it represents;
    (2) The tested emission unit must use the same type of flux 
materials in the same proportions as the emission units it represents;
    (3) The tested emission unit must be operated utilizing the same 
work practices as the emission units that it represents;
    (4) The tested emission unit must be of the same design as the 
emission units that it represents; and
    (5) The tested emission unit must be tested under the highest load 
or capacity reasonably expected to occur for any of the emission units 
that it represents.
* * * * *
    (h) Testing of commonly-ducted units within a secondary aluminum 
processing unit. When group 1 furnaces and/or in-line fluxers are 
included in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, and the emissions from 
more than one emission unit within that existing SAPU or new SAPU are 
manifolded to a single control device, compliance for all units within 
the SAPU is demonstrated if the total measured emissions from all 
controlled and uncontrolled units in the SAPU do not exceed the 
emission limits calculated for that SAPU based on the applicable 
equation in Sec. 63.1505(k).
    (i) Testing of commonly-ducted units not within a secondary 
aluminum processing unit. With the prior approval of the permitting 
authority, an owner or operator may do combined performance testing of 
two or more individual affected sources or emission units which are not 
included in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, but whose emissions are 
manifolded to a single control device. Any such performance testing of 
commonly-ducted units must satisfy the following basic requirements:
    (1) All testing must be designed to verify that each affected 
source or emission unit individually satisfies all emission 
requirements applicable to that affected source or emission unit;
    (2) All emissions of pollutants subject to a standard must be 
tested at the outlet from each individual affected source or emission 
unit while operating under the highest load or capacity reasonably 
expected to occur, and prior to the point that the emissions are 
manifolded together with emissions from other affected sources or 
emission units;
    (3) The combined emissions from all affected sources and emission 
units which are manifolded to a single emission control device must be 
tested at the outlet of the emission control device;
    (4) All tests at the outlet of the emission control device must be 
conducted with all affected sources and emission units whose emissions 
are manifolded to the control device operating simultaneously under the 
highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur; and
    (5) For purposes of demonstrating compliance of a commonly-ducted 
unit with any emission limit for a particular type of pollutant, the 
emissions of that pollutant by the individual unit shall be presumed to 
be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of that 
pollutant from all commonly-ducted units are controlled at the outlet 
of the emission control device.
    8. Section 63.1512 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.1512  Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements 
and procedures.

* * * * *
    (h) In-line fluxer. (1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer 
that uses reactive flux materials must conduct a performance test to 
measure emissions of HCl and PM or otherwise demonstrate compliance in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If the in-line fluxer 
is equipped with an add-on control device, the emissions must be 
measured at the outlet of the control device.
    (2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which 
reactive chlorine flux is added to an in-line fluxer and assume, for 
the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, 
that all chlorine in the reactive flux added to the in-line fluxer is 
emitted as HCl. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not 
required to conduct an emission test for HCl. If the owner or operator 
of any in-line flux box which has no ventilation ductwork manifolded to 
any outlet or emission control device chooses to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limit for HCl by limiting use of reactive chlorine 
flux and assuming that all chlorine in the flux is emitted as HCl, 
compliance with the HCl limit shall also constitute compliance with the 
emission limit for PM, and no separate emission test for PM is 
required. In this case, the owner or operator of the unvented in-line 
flux box must utilize the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the 
in-line flux boxes when determining the total emissions for any SAPU 
which includes the flux box.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.1515 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(8) and 
(b)(9) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1515  Notifications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design 
residence time of no less than 0.8 seconds and design operating 
temperature of no less than 1,600  deg.F for each afterburner used to 
control emissions from a sweat furnace that is not subject to a 
performance test.
    (9) The OM&M plan (including site-specific monitoring plan for each 
group 1 furnace with no add-on air pollution control device).
* * * * *
    10. Section 63.1517 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(11) and 
(b)(16)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1517  Records.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) For each in-line fluxer for which the owner or operator has 
certified that no reactive flux was used:
    (i) Operating logs which establish that no source of reactive flux 
was present at the in-line fluxer;
    (ii) Labels required pursuant to Sec. 63.1506(b) which establish 
that no reactive flux may be used at the in-line fluxer; or
    (iii) Operating logs which document each flux gas, agent, or 
material used during each operating cycle.
* * * * *
    (16) * * *
    (ii) OM&M plan; and
* * * * *
    11. Table 2 to subpart RRR is amended under the entry for ``Group 1

[[Page 41135]]

furnace with lime-injected fabric filter (including those that are part 
of a secondary aluminum processing unit)'' by revising in column 2 the 
entry ``Fabric filter inlet temperature'' 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-    *    *    *    *      *    *    *    *
 injected fabric filter                 *                     *
 (including those that are
 part of a secondary
 aluminum processing unit).
                              Fabric filter inlet   Maintain average
                               temperature.          fabric filter inlet
                                                     unit temperature
                                                     for each 3-hour
                                                     period at or below
                                                     average temperature
                                                     during the
                                                     performance test
                                                     +14  deg.C (+25
                                                     deg.F).
                                                    *    *    *    *
                                                     *
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Table 3 to subpart RRR is amended by:
    a. Under the entry for ``Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric 
filter'', revising in column 2 the entry ``Reactive flux injection rate 
Weight measurement device accuracy of +1%\b\; calibrate every 3 months; 
record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 15-
minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and record 
total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time 
period used in performance test; or Alternative flux injection rate 
determination procedure per Sec. 63.1510(j)(5).''; and
    b. Under the entry for ``Group 1 furnace without add-on controls'', 
adding an entry in the third column for the entry in the second column 
``Feed material (melting/holding furnace)''.
    The revisions read as follows:

 Table 3 to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements
        for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Affected source/emission        Monitor type/          Monitoring
            unit                operation/process       requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
         *                  *                  *
Group 1 furnace with lime-    *    *    *    *      *    *    *    *
 injected fabric filter.                *                     *
                              Reactive flux         Weight measurement
                               injection rate.       device accuracy of
                              *    *    *    *       1%b;
                               *.                    calibrate every 3
                                                     months; record
                                                     weight and type of
                                                     reactive flux added
                                                     or injected for
                                                     each 15-minute
                                                     block period while
                                                     reactive fluxing
                                                     occurs; calculate
                                                     and record total
                                                     reactive flux
                                                     injection rate for
                                                     each operating
                                                     cycle or time
                                                     period used in
                                                     performance test;
                                                     or
                                                    Alternative flux
                                                     injection rate
                                                     determination
                                                     procedure per Sec.
                                                     63.1510(j)(5).
                                                    *    *    *    *
                                                     *
Group 1 furnace without add-  *    *    *    *      *    *    *    *
 on controls.                           *                     *
                              Feed material         Record type of
                               (melting/holding      permissible feed/
                               furnace)..            charge material;
                                                     certify charge
                                                     materials every 6
                                                     months.
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Appendix A to subpart RRR is amended by revising the entry for 
Sec. 63.14 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.  63.14............  Incorporation by reference.......  Yes....................  Chapters 3 and 5 of ACGIH
                                                                                      Industrial Ventilation
                                                                                      Manual for capture/
                                                                                      collection system; and
                                                                                      Interim Procedures for
                                                                                      Estimating Risk Associated
                                                                                      with Exposure to Mixtures
                                                                                      of Chlorinated
                                                                                      Dibenzofurans (CDDs and
                                                                                      CDFs) and 1989 Update
                                                                                      (incorporated by reference
                                                                                      in Sec.  63.1502).

[[Page 41136]]

 
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                               *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-14627 Filed 6-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P