[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59787-59793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24227]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7382-4]
RIN 2060-AE78


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2002, the EPA promulgated amendments to the 
national emission standards for secondary aluminum production as a 
direct final rule along with a parallel proposal to be used as a basis 
for final action in the event we received any adverse comments. On 
August 13, 2002, we withdrew the direct final rule amendments because 
one commenter submitted adverse comments on certain amendments. This 
action promulgates final amendments to the national emission standards 
for secondary aluminum production based on the June 14, 2002 proposal 
which accompanied the direct final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Docket A-2002-05, containing supporting information used in 
developing these final rule amendments, is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA, 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room B-108, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Minerals 
and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C504-05), Emission Standards Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296, facsimile number 
(919) 541-5600, electronic mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of the administrative record compiled by EPA in the 
development of these final rule amendments. The docket is a dynamic 
file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The 
docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and 
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so they 
can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated rules and their preambles, the contents of the 
docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. Other 
material related to this rulemaking is available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the 
WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at 
EPA's web site provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN 
is needed, call the TTN help line at (919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of these final rule amendments is available only 
by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by November 25, 2002. Under section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rule 
amendments that was raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. 
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by these final rule amendments may not be challenged

[[Page 59788]]

separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are secondary aluminum production facilities (including those 
collocated at primary aluminum production facilities) using clean 
charge, post-consumer scrap, aluminum scrap, ingots, foundry returns, 
dross, or molten metal as the raw material, and performing one or more 
of the following processes: aluminum scrap shredding, scrap drying/
delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., 
melting, holding, refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or 
dross cooling. Affected sources at facilities that are major sources of 
HAP are regulated under the final rule. In addition, emissions of 
dioxins and furans from affected sources at facilities that are area 
sources of hazardous air pollutants are also regulated. Regulated 
categories and entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                      NAICS code    SIC Code       Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................       331314         3341  Secondary smelting and alloying of
                                                                           aluminum facilities.
                                                                          Secondary aluminum production facility
                                                                           affected sources that are collocated
                                                                           at:
                                                     331312         3334  Primary aluminum production
                                                                           facilities.
                                                     331315         3353  Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil
                                                                           manufacturing facilities.
                                                     331316         3354  Aluminum extruded product
                                                                           manufacturing facilities.
                                                     331319         3355  Other aluminum rolling and drawing
                                                                           facilities.
                                                     331521         3363  Aluminum die casting facilities.
                                                     331524         3365  Aluminum foundry facilities.
State/local/tribal governments................  ...........  ...........  Not affected.
Federal government............................  ...........  ...........  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.1500 of the rule. If you 
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the contact person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this 
preamble to these final rule amendments.

I. Background
II. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary 
Aluminum Production
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    On March 23, 2000, we promulgated the national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production 
(40 CFR 63, subpart RRR) at 63 FR 15710. These standards were 
established under the authority of section 112(d) of the CAA to reduce 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from major and area 
sources.
    After promulgation of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production, 
two petitions for judicial review of the standard were filed in the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first of these petitions was filed 
by the American Foundrymen's Society, the North American Die Casting 
Association, and the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society. American 
Foundrymen's Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civ. No 
00-1208 (D.C. Cir.). A second petition for judicial review was filed by 
the Aluminum Association. The Aluminum Association v. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 00-1211 (D.C. Cir.). There was no 
significant overlap in the issues presented by the two petitions, and 
the cases have never been consolidated. However, we did enter into 
separate settlement discussions with the petitioners in each case.
    The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability 
of subpart RRR to aluminum die casters and aluminum foundries which 
were first considered during the initial rulemaking. Because aluminum 
die casters and foundries sometimes conduct the same type of operations 
as other secondary aluminum producers, we originally intended to apply 
the standards to these facilities, but only in those instances when 
they conduct such operations. However, representatives of the affected 
facilities argued that they should not be considered to be secondary 
aluminum producers and should be wholly exempt from the rule. During 
the rulemaking, we decided to permit die casters and foundries to melt 
contaminated internal scrap without being considered to be secondary 
aluminum producers, but their representatives insisted that too many 
facilities would still be subject to the rule. At the time of 
promulgation of the standards, in response to a request by the die 
casters and foundries, we announced we would withdraw the standards as 
applied to die casters and foundries and develop separate maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards for those facilities.
    After the Foundrymen's case was filed, we negotiated an initial 
settlement agreement in that case which established a process to 
effectuate our commitment to develop new MACT standards. In that first 
settlement, EPA agreed that it would stay the current standard for 
those facilities, collect comprehensive data to support alternate 
standards, and promulgate alternate standards. We then published a 
proposal to stay the standards and an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) concerning new standards. However, during the process 
of preparing for information collection, the petitioners concluded that 
the present rule was not as sweeping in applicability as they had 
feared, and the parties then agreed to explore an alternate approach to 
settlement based

[[Page 59789]]

on clarifications of the current standards.
    We subsequently reached agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners 
on a new settlement. Pursuant to that settlement, we agreed to propose 
changes in the applicability of the present standards which would 
permit customer returns without solid paints or coatings to be treated 
like internal scrap, and would permit facilities operated by the same 
company at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of 
determining what is internal scrap. Those revisions were addressed in a 
separate proposed rule (67 FR 41125, June 14, 2002).
    In the Foundrymen's settlement, we also agreed to defer the 
compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at 
existing aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and aluminum 
extruders until the compliance date for existing sources so that the 
related rulemaking on general applicability issues could be completed 
first. This element of that settlement is the only one which is 
implemented by this final rule.
    As required by section 113(g) of the CAA, we provided notice and an 
opportunity for comment concerning the Foundrymen's settlement (67 FR 
9972, March 5, 2002). We received three adverse comments on the 
settlement, although none of the comments addressed the only element in 
the settlement which is implemented by this final rule. After reviewing 
the comments, we decided to proceed with settlement. A copy of the 
comments and our responses to them is available in the docket for this 
rule.
    In separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of the 
Aluminum Association case. That settlement required that we propose a 
number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards. 
The substantive changes have been addressed in the same separate 
proposed rule as the applicability changes for aluminum die casters and 
foundries. The Aluminum Association settlement also required that we 
propose to clarify and simplify the compliance dates for the standards 
and to defer certain early compliance obligations until after the 
substantive rulemaking can be completed. The compliance issues are 
addressed by amendments in this final rule.
    Pursuant to CAA section 113(g), we also provided notice and an 
opportunity for public comment concerning the Aluminum Association 
settlement (67 FR 16374, April 5, 2002). We received one adverse 
comment concerning that settlement. After reviewing that comment, we 
decided to proceed with settlement. A copy of that comment and our 
response to it is available in the docket for this rule.
    We originally published the amendments adopted by this final rule 
as a direct final rule (67 FR 41118, June 14, 2002). The intent of 
these amendments is to eliminate confusion and to clarify various 
compliance dates in the promulgated standard, to encourage early 
performance tests, and to permit some basic applicability questions for 
aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders to be resolved before 
the compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at 
existing facilities. Therefore, we decided to utilize a direct final 
rule so that these changes could become effective as quickly as 
possible.
    Along with the direct final rule, we published a proposed rule to 
serve as the basis for final action in the event that we received any 
adverse comment on the proposed rule. We received a letter from one 
commenter expressing opposition to six of the amendments in the direct 
final rule. We also received a letter from another commenter expressing 
support for all of the amendments in the direct final rule. Because of 
the receipt of adverse comment, we published a notice withdrawing the 
direct final rule at 63 FR 52616. In view of the relationship between 
those amendments concerning which we received adverse comment and some 
of the remaining amendments, and to avoid the possibility of confusion 
resulting from partial adoption of the amendments, we decided to 
withdraw all amendments contained in the direct final rule. Today's 
final rule amendments serve as our final administrative action 
concerning all of the amendments set forth in the direct final rule and 
parallel proposal.

II. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary 
Aluminum Production

    We received one letter in which a commenter expressed opposition to 
six specific amendments set forth in the direct final rule. Our 
responses to these adverse comments are set forth below. We also 
received one other letter expressing support for all of the amendments 
in the direct final rule. Both letters are available in the docket.
    One of the commenters opposed the proposed new 40 CFR 63.1501(c), 
which would defer the compliance date for affected sources which are 
constructed or reconstructed at an existing aluminum die casting 
facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extruder, and which meet the 
current applicability criteria for the secondary aluminum standards, 
until March 24, 2003 (the compliance date for existing sources) or 
startup, whichever is later. The commenter stated that these sources 
are able to achieve compliance with MACT as originally promulgated, 
that any major sources excluded from the source category will still be 
required to achieve a MACT level of control, and that, if EPA later 
promulgates less stringent standards for these sources, they will be 
permitted to demonstrate compliance with those standards.
    We believe that the commenter misconstrued the very narrow purpose 
of this provision. We proposed in a separate rulemaking at 63 FR 41118 
to make some modest adjustments in the applicability criteria for 
aluminum die casting facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum 
extruders. Those proposed applicability changes would permit customer 
returns without any solid paints or coatings to be treated like 
internal scrap and would permit facilities operated by the same company 
at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining 
what is internal scrap in determining which facilities are subject to 
the standards. The only purpose of the amendment in 40 CFR 63.1501(c) 
is to defer the compliance date for affected sources which are 
constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities until after the 
scope of the applicability criteria has been clearly resolved. We do 
not think it is reasonable to require sources which may no longer be 
covered by the applicability criteria after we complete action on the 
other rule proposed at 63 FR 41125 to undertake compliance activities 
during this brief interim period. If the newly constructed or 
reconstructed sources remain within the applicability criteria after 
the separate rulemaking has been concluded, such sources will be 
subject to the same substantive control requirements.
    The same commenter also expressed opposition to the proposed 
amendments to Sec.  63.1505(c), (d), (e), (f), and (k) that would 
change the compliance date for certain existing sources to a single 
certain date, rather than requiring compliance to begin immediately 
after a successful performance test. The commenter opposed the changes 
because they would permit facilities to shut down control devices even 
though they have demonstrated the capacity to meet the standards.
    While we understand the concern that reductions in HAP emissions 
may be deferred by affected facilities, the commenter has not addressed 
the reasons why we decided it is necessary to make these changes. The 
change to a single definite compliance date for

[[Page 59790]]

certain existing sources is an integral part of a larger set of changes 
which are intended to resolve confusion and facilitate rational 
planning for compliance at the affected facilities. In particular, the 
existing rule is confusing because a facility could be unable to 
finalize its required operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) 
plan until after completing, and then evaluating the results, of an 
initial performance test. The existing rule could also discourage 
facilities from conducting early performance tests, even though such 
early tests could facilitate identification and correction of problems 
before the compliance date.
    We did not receive adverse comment on any of the other amendments 
previously set forth in the direct final rule. However, we decided to 
withdraw all of the amendments, in view of the relationship between the 
amendments concerning which we received adverse comment and some of the 
remaining amendments, and the potential for confusion which would be 
associated with partial promulgation. In today's action, we have 
decided to adopt all of the amendments as proposed. We hereby 
incorporate by reference the explanation we previously provided for 
those amendments on which no adverse comment was received.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in 
standards that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that these amendments do not constitute a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the above criteria. 
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    These final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. 
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and 
local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be 
subject to the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to these final rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' These final rule amendments 
do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, 
because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to 
the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final 
rule amendments.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) 
is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 
13045, because they are not an economically significant regulatory 
action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the rule and 
amendments are based on technology performance and not on health or 
safety risks.

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

    These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 
because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small

[[Page 59791]]

governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that these final rule amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, 
or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the amendments 
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they 
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply 
to these final rule amendments.

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

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule 
amendments on small entities, small entities are defined as: (1) A 
small business that has fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule 
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because the intent of these amendments is to eliminate 
confusion and to clarify various compliance dates in the promulgated 
standard, to encourage early performance tests, and to permit some 
basic applicability questions for aluminum die casters, foundries, and 
extruders to be resolved before the compliance date for new sources 
constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
Today's action consists primarily of clarifications to the final rule 
that impose no new information collection requirements on industry or 
EPA. Therefore, the existing ICR has not been revised. However, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the 
information collection requirements contained in the existing 
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0433 (EPA ICR no. 
1894.02). A copy of the ICR document may be obtained from Susan Auby by 
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 
566-1672. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pubic Law No. 
104-113, Sec.  12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Because today's action contains no new test methods, sampling 
procedures or other technical standards, there is no need to consider 
the availability of voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. These final rule amendments are not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These amendments will be effective on 
November 25, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 18, 2002.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RRR--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.1501 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1501  Dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
comply

[[Page 59792]]

with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the owner 
or operator of a new affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with the 
requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2000 or upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    (c) The owner or operator of any affected source which is 
constructed or reconstructed at any existing aluminum die casting 
facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which 
otherwise meets the applicability criteria set forth in Sec.  63.1500 
must comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003 or 
upon startup, whichever is later.

    3. Section 63.1505 is amended by:
    a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and 
(e);
    b. Revising paragraph (f)(2); and
    c. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (g), (h), and (k).
    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Aluminum scrap shredder. On and after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator of an aluminum 
scrap shredder at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a 
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere:
* * * * *
    (c) Thermal chip dryer. On and after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator of a thermal chip 
dryer must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere 
emissions in excess of:
* * * * *
    (d) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. On and after the 
compliance date established by Sec.  63.1501:
* * * * *
    (e) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln: alternative 
limits. The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln may choose to comply with the emission limits in this 
paragraph (e) as an alternative to the limits in paragraph (d) of this 
section if the scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln is equipped 
with an afterburner having a design residence time of at least 1 second 
and the afterburner is operated at a temperature of at least 750 [deg]C 
(1400 [deg]F) at all times. On and after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501:
* * * * *
    (f) Sweat furnace. * * *
    (2) On and after the compliance date established by Sec.  63.1501, 
the owner or operator of a sweat furnace at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major or area source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.80 
nanogram (ng) of D/F TEQ per dscm (3.5 x 10-\10\ gr per 
dscf) at 11 percent oxygen (O2).
    (g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator of a dross-only 
furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 
source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
* * * * *
    (h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator of a rotary dross 
cooler at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 
source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
* * * * *
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the compliance 
date established by Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator must comply 
with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM and HCl 
in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section for each secondary 
aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility 
that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with the 
emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph 
(k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1506 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1506  Operating requirements.

    (a) Summary. (1) On and after the compliance date established by 
Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator must operate all new and existing 
affected sources and control equipment according to the requirements in 
this section.
* * * * *

    5. Section 63.1510 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Summary. On and after the compliance date established by Sec.  
63.1501, the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or 
emission unit must monitor all control equipment and processes 
according to the requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements 
for each type of affected source and emission unit are summarized in 
Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner 
or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing 
affected source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator of an existing 
affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting 
authority no later than the compliance date established by Sec.  
63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source must 
submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority within 90 
days after a successful initial performance test under Sec.  
63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date established by 
Sec.  63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is required. Each plan 
must contain the following information:
* * * * *

    6. Section 63.1511 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general 
requirements.

    (a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance 
test required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare a 
site-specific test plan which satisfies all of the requirements, and 
must obtain approval of the plan pursuant to the procedures, set forth 
in Sec.  63.7(c).
    (b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial 
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and 
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as 
described in Sec.  63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any existing 
affected source for which an initial performance test is required to 
demonstrate compliance must conduct this initial performance test no 
later than the date for compliance established by Sec.  63.1501(a). The 
owner or operator of any new affected source for which an initial 
performance test is required must conduct this initial performance test 
within 90 days after the date for compliance established by Sec.  
63.1501(b). Except for the date by which the performance test must be 
conducted, the owner or operator must conduct each performance test in 
accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth

[[Page 59793]]

in Sec.  63.7(c). Owners or operators of affected sources located at 
facilities which are area sources are subject only to those performance 
testing requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners or operators of sweat 
furnaces meeting the specifications of Sec.  63.1505(f)(1) are not 
required to conduct a performance test.
* * * * *

    7. Section 63.1515 is amended by removing the first sentence in the 
introductory text of paragraph (b) and adding, in its place, two new 
sentences to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1515  Notifications.

* * * * *
    (b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or 
operator of an existing affected source must submit a notification of 
compliance status report within 60 days after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501(a). Each owner or operator of a new 
affected source must submit a notification of compliance status report 
within 90 days after conducting the initial performance test required 
by Sec.  63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date 
established by Sec.  63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is 
required. * * *
* * * * *

    8. Appendix A to subpart RRR is amended by revising the entries for 
Sec.  63.7(a)-(h) and Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3) to read as follows:

              Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Requirement            Applies to RRR              Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(a)-(h).................  Performance Test            Yes................  Except Sec.   63.1511
                                      Requirements-                                    establishes dates for
                                      Applicability and Dates.                         initial performance
                                                                                       tests.
------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)..............  Notification of Compliance  Yes................  Except Sec.   63.1515
                                      Status.                                          establishes dates for
                                                                                       notification of
                                                                                       compliance status
                                                                                       reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-24227 Filed 9-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P