[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79808-79819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32779]



[[Page 79807]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 79808]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7430-6]
RIN 2060-AE77


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, the EPA issued national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production 
facilities under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action 
amends the applicability provisions for aluminum die casters, 
foundries, and extruders. The amendments 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; revise 
the standard for unvented in-line flux boxes; and clarify the control 
requirements for sidewell furnaces. These changes are being made 
pursuant to settlement agreements in two cases seeking judicial review 
of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production. A separate rule to 
clarify compliance dates and defer certain early compliance obligations 
which might have otherwise come due before completion of this 
rulemaking was published on September 24, 2002.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 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, Emission Standards Division (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: Regulated Entities. The amendments change 
the applicability provisions of the NESHAP for three types of 
facilities: aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities (NAICS 
331316), aluminum die casting facilities (NAICS 331521), and aluminum 
foundry facilities (NAICS 331524). Consequently, categories and 
entities potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category                 NAICS*              entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          331314  Secondary smelting and
                                                  alloying of aluminum
                                                  facilities.
                                 ..............  Secondary aluminum
                                                  production facility
                                                  affected sources that
                                                  are collocated at:
                                         331312  Primary aluminum
                                                  production facilities.
                                         331315  Aluminum sheet, plate,
                                                  and foil manufacturing
                                                  facilities.
                                         331316  Aluminum extruded
                                                  product manufacturing
                                                  facilities.
                                         331319  Other aluminum rolling
                                                  and drawing
                                                  facilities.
                                         331521  Aluminum die casting
                                                  facilities.
                                         331524  Aluminum foundry
                                                  facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.1500 of the 
final rule. 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.
    Docket. We have established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. A-2002-06 and E-Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0084. 
The official public docket consists of the documents specifically 
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other 
information related to this action. Although a part of the official 
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that 
is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph 
entitled ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in 
the appropriate docket identification number.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's amendments 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 or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 February 28, 2003. 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

[[Page 79809]]

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 separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
    A. How Are We Amending the Applicability provisions?
    B. What Amendments Are We Making Concerning Control of Commonly-
Ducted Units?
    C. How Are We Amending the Procedures for Adoption of an 
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan?
    D. How Are We Amending the Provisions Concerning Testing of 
Representative Emission Units?
    E. How Are We Amending the Standards for Unvented In-Line Flux 
Boxes?
    F. How Are We Clarifying the Control Requirements for Sidewell 
Furnaces?
    G. What Other Amendments Are We Making?
III. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary 
Aluminum Production
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    On March 23, 2000 (63 FR 15690), we promulgated the NESHAP for 
secondary aluminum production (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR). Those 
standards were established under the authority of section 112(d) of the 
CAA to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from major 
and area sources.
    After promulgation of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production, 
two petitions for judicial review of the standards were filed in the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first of these petitions was filed 
by the American Foundrymen's Society, the North American Die Casting 
Association, and the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society (American 
Foundrymen's Society et al. v. U.S. EPA, Civ. No 00-1208 (D.C. Cir.)). 
A second petition for judicial review was filed by the Aluminum 
Association (The Aluminum Association v. U.S. EPA, No. 00-1211 (D.C. 
Cir.)). There was no significant overlap in the issues presented by the 
two petitions, and the cases have never been consolidated. However, we 
did thereafter enter into separate settlement discussions with the 
petitioners in each case.
    The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability 
of 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 advance 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 existing standards were 
not as sweeping in applicability as they had feared, and the parties 
then agreed to explore an alternate approach to settlement based on 
clarifications of the current standards. We subsequently reached 
agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners on a new settlement which 
entirely supplanted the prior settlement. Accordingly, we published a 
notice withdrawing the proposed stay of the existing standards for 
aluminum die casters and foundries, and announcing that we would take 
no further action on new standards for those facilities (67 FR 41138, 
June 14, 2002).
    In the new settlement, we agreed to propose some changes in the 
applicability provisions of the current standards concerning aluminum 
die casters and foundries. These changes included permitting customer 
returns without paints or solid coatings to be treated like internal 
scrap, and permitting facilities operated by the same company at 
different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining what 
is internal scrap. These revisions of the applicability criteria were 
proposed on June 14, 2002 (67 FR 41125) and are being adopted in 
today's final 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. We took final action 
concerning that element of the Foundrymen's settlement in a final rule 
published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 59787).
    In entirely separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of 
the Aluminum Association case. That settlement required that we propose 
a number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards, 
which we are also adopting in today's final rule. The Aluminum 
Association settlement also required that we clarify and simplify the 
compliance dates for the standards, and defer certain early compliance 
obligations which might otherwise come due during the rulemaking 
process. We took final action concerning those compliance issues in the 
final rule published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 59787).

II. Summary of the Final Amendments

A. How Are We Amending the Applicability Provisions?

    We originally intended to regulate aluminum die casting facilities,

[[Page 79810]]

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:
    [sbull] The facility does not melt any materials other than clean 
charge and materials generated within the facility; and
    [sbull] 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, the amendments contain 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. The amendments also 
include 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 new language we are 
adopting, 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.
    The amendments also change the existing definitions of ``secondary 
aluminum production facility,'' ``clean charge,'' ``internal 
runaround'' (now called ``runaround scrap''), and ``thermal chip 
dryer,'' and add new definitions of ``customer returns'' and ``internal 
scrap.'' In the aggregate, these revisions clarify the circumstances 
when aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders are considered to 
be secondary aluminum production facilities and, thus, within the 
applicability of the rule.
    We are also adding 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 are making this change to eliminate an 
incentive which might exist for small facilities, which are otherwise 
outside the applicability of the rule, to discontinue their use of 
thermal 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 made 
are reasonable clarifications and fully consistent with that original 
decision.

B. What Amendments Are We Making 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 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 are adding 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 amendments add a new paragraph to Sec.  63.1505(k) for 
SAPU. The new paragraph (k)(6) allows 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 requires prior approval of the 
responsible permitting authority) applies only under subpart RRR and is 
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

[[Page 79811]]

are commonly-ducted but subject to separate standards.
    We are adding 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 apply:
    [sbull] Testing must be designed to verify that each affected 
source or emission unit individually satisfies all applicable emission 
requirements.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] When determining compliance for a commonly-ducted unit, 
emissions of a particular pollutant from the individual unit are 
presumed to be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of 
that pollutant from all commonly-ducted units.

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

    In the final rule amendments published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 
59787), we clarified the timing of submission of an operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan to the permitting authority, 
which is ambiguous in the rule as initially promulgated on March 23, 
2000. In this action, we are clarifying 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 amending 
the existing rule to correct that omission.
    Under the amendments, the facility is required to certify that the 
OM&M plan it is submitting complies with all requirements of the 
standards and to comply with the OM&M plan as submitted to the 
permitting authority, unless and until the plan is revised. If the 
permitting authority determines that any revisions of the plan are 
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the standards, the facility is 
required to promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the 
revised plan. If the facility itself determines that 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. These same 
general procedures also apply to the site-specific monitoring plan, 
which is one element of the OM&M plan.

D. How Are We Amending 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 clarifying 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 amending 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 Amending 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 
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 adding new language to 
Sec.  63.1512(h) which permits a facility with an unvented in-line flux 
box, which elects to demonstrate 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 gives facilities an 
alternative to testing of actual emissions, which could require costly 
construction of an enclosure around the unit or other engineering 
modifications. If a facility infers compliance with the PM standard in 
this manner, the facility is also 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 Clarifying the Control Requirements for Sidewell 
Furnaces?

    Industry representatives have pointed out that 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

[[Page 79812]]

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 revising the language in 
question to clarify our intent.
    In addition, we are amending Sec.  63.1505(i)(7) to correct an 
erroneous cross-reference. As amended, certain sidewell group 1 
furnaces are required to meet the limits in paragraphs (i)(1) through 
(4) rather than (j)(1) through (4).

G. What Other Amendments Are We Making?

    We are amending 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 clarifying the recordkeeping requirements for in-line 
fluxers which do not use reactive flux. Section 63.1517(b)(11) is 
amended to permit the facility to document that a particular in-line 
fluxer does not use reactive flux through the use of operating logs 
that show that no source of reactive flux was used, labels that 
prohibit use of reactive flux, or operating logs which document the 
type of flux used during each operating cycle.
    We are amending Sec.  63.1505(f)(1), which establishes emission 
standards for sweat furnaces, to correct an erroneous residence time.
    We are clarifying the definition of a melting/holding furnace in 
Sec.  63.1503.
    We are amending Sec.  63.1517(b)(16) to clarify that both major and 
area sources must keep a copy of the OM&M plan 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.
    We are also making minor amendments to correct printing or 
technical errors in the final rule. These include:
    [sbull] Revising Tables 2 and 3 of subpart RRR to correct entries 
which were inadvertently printed in the wrong columns and an incorrect 
specification for a weight measurement device.
    [sbull] Revising Equation 2 of Sec.  63.1505(k)(2) to correct the 
HCl emission limit (LcHCl).
    [sbull] Revising the entry for Sec.  63.14 in appendix A to subpart 
RRR to include incorporation by reference for a second document.

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

    Comment: One commenter opposes the proposed revision of the 
applicability criteria which would permit facilities to melt customer 
returns. This commenter argues that there is no reason to conclude that 
melting scrap contaminated with oils and coating applied outside the 
facility is less likely to result in dioxin formation than melting 
purchased scrap with similar contaminants.
    Response: In considering this comment, it should be noted that 
those customer returns which are contaminated with paints or other 
solid coatings are not included in the proposed applicability change. 
In any case, our decision to permit melting of certain customer returns 
is based on a decision to treat this scrap like contaminated internal 
scrap in deciding whether a facility is engaged in secondary aluminum 
production. Our decision is not based on any technical assessment 
regarding the likelihood of dioxin formation.
    Comment: One commenter argues that the amendments would allow 
foundries and die casters, including those facilities which are major 
sources of HAP, to permanently avoid emission limitations, testing 
requirements and monitoring requirements.
    Response: We recognize that some aluminum foundries and die casters 
may have the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of chlorine 
(a listed HAP), but we do not agree with the conclusion of the 
commenter that the rule will permit such facilities to escape 
regulation entirely. We note that the same argument could be made 
concerning the applicability exclusion in the existing subpart RRR. Our 
decision to exclude certain aluminum die casters, foundries, and 
extruders from the applicability of subpart RRR does not constitute a 
determination that such facilities should be entirely unregulated. We 
believe that most, if not all, of the excluded facilities are only area 
sources of HAP. However, if there is any aluminum foundry or die caster 
which would be entirely exempt under the revised applicability 
provisions for the secondary aluminum source category and which also 
has the potential to emit major source quantities of HAP, a separate 
MACT standard may ultimately be necessary. If the commenter identifies 
any facility which is a major source of HAP but is not included in any 
listed source category, EPA has authority to augment the source 
category list as provided in CAA section 112(c)(5).
    Comment: One commenter opposes the provisions permitting 
redesignation of existing emission units as new, on the basis that 
uncontrolled or poorly controlled new emission units could comply by 
averaging their emissions with well-controlled redesignated older 
units.
    Response: We believe the commenter has misconstrued the effect of 
the new provisions. The existing rule provides that certain types of 
emission units may be included within a secondary aluminum processing 
unit or SAPU, which is the affected source to which the standards 
apply. We construe the statute to prohibit combining new emission units 
with existing emission units. The final rule amendments pursuant to the 
settlement provide that existing emission units may be permanently 
redesignated as new. Because the standard for an existing SAPU and the 
standard for a new SAPU are identical, this procedure will not alter 
the basic control requirements which apply to the redesignated units. 
The final rule amendments also establish a procedure under which 
multiple units can be ducted to the same control device, but compliance 
will still be separately demonstrated for each commonly-ducted unit.
    Comment: One commenter states that there are no data to support the 
change in residence time requirements for sweat furnace afterburners.
    Response: We established the emission limits for sweat furnaces 
based on limited performance test data. The EPA established the work 
practice standards for sweat furnaces on the basis of conditions which 
were thought to have existed during these performance tests. Upon 
review of the performance test data, we determined incorrect 
dimensional data provided in the test report led to an incorrect 
calculation of afterburner residence time. The amendments do not make 
the emission limits less stringent but only alter the work practice 
requirements which are necessary to ensure compliance with the emission 
limits. We have no further sweat furnace emission data and the 
commenter has not provided any such data.
    Comment: The same commenter who questioned the technical basis for 
the decreased residence time for sweat furnaces argues that EPA is 
obligated to

[[Page 79813]]

consider longer residence times as a ``beyond the floor control 
option.''
    Response: We are not aware of any technologies which could decrease 
the HAP emission rate for sweat furnaces beyond the floor technology 
and have no data upon which to evaluate any such technologies. While an 
increase in the residence time for the floor technology may increase 
the overall control efficiency by a marginal amount, no data are 
available to make this determination.
    Comment: One commenter requests that the amendments include a work 
practice standard for thermal chip dryers, analogous to the work 
practice requirement for sweat furnaces.
    Response: The amendments requested by the commenter are outside of 
the scope of these amendments and cannot be considered in this 
rulemaking. In any event, the commenter supplied no test data in 
support of a work practice standard for thermal chip dryers, and EPA 
has no data that would support the suggested change in the standard.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

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 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 this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
and was not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved 
the information collection requirements in the existing rule (subpart 
RRR) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0433. This action does 
not change the information collection requirements in subpart RRR, but 
does reduce the number of facilities subject to the rule. An amended 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1894.01), 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 from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov.icr.
    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 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 will be 
reduced by approximately 20 percent.
    As a result of these 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.

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

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule 
amendments. The EPA has also determined that these final rule 
amendments 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, 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule 
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action 
will not create any new costs for affected firms, large or small. In 
fact, the amendments will reduce the economic impact on small 
businesses because of the revised applicability requirements for die 
casters, extruders, and foundries. Because these plants will not incur 
any significant costs or economic impact, EPA has determined that it is 
not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in 
connection with these final rule amendments. After

[[Page 79814]]

considering the economic impact of today's final rule amendments on 
small entities, the EPA has concluded that they will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. 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 final 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 incremental costs 
are attributable to these amendments. In addition, the amendments do 
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they 
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not 
apply to these amendments.

E. 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 rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They do 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected plants are 
owned or operated by State governments. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to these rule amendments.

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

G. 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. These final rule amendments 
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on 
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

H. 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 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (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

[[Page 79815]]

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (such as material 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual 
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA's response to the NTTAA requirements are discussed in the 
preamble to the final rule (65 FR 15690). These 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.

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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 19, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RRR--[AMENDED]

    2. Section 63.1500 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 79816]]

    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 
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. Sec.  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] TR30DE02.001

* * * * *
    (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) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. * * * The 
plan must be accompanied by a written certification by the owner or 
operator that the OM&M plan satisfies all

[[Page 79817]]

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) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. * 
* *
    (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 Sec.  
63.1510(j)(5) and Sec.  63.1510(v), the owner or operator may submit an 
application to the Administrator. Any such application will be 
processed according to the 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.

[[Page 79818]]

    (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 
furnace with lime-injected fabric filter (including those that are part 
of 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Monitor type/          Operating
 Affected source/emission unit  operation/process       requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime-          * * * * *            * * * * *
 injected fabric filter filter  Fabric filter      Maintain average
 (including those that are       inlet              fabric filter inlet
 part of a secondary aluminum    temperature.       temperature for each
 processing unit).              * * * * *........   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'', 
revising in column 2 the entry for ``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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Monitor type/          Monitoring
 Affected source/emission 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).

[[Page 79819]]

 
                                                         * * * * *
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 under the entry for 
``Sec.  63.14'' by revising in column 2 the entry for ``Incorporation 
by reference'' 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         Yes....................  Chapters 3 and 5 of
                                        Reference.                                        ACGIH Industrial
                                                                                          Ventilation Manual for
                                                                                          capture/collection
                                                                                          systems; 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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-32779 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P