[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12645-12652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6303]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031; FRL-7465-7]
RIN 2060-AE76


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On October 7, 1997, the EPA issued national emission standards 
for primary aluminum reduction plants under section 112 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). This proposal would amend the existing rule by revising 
the emission limits for polycyclic organic matter applicable to one 
potline subcategory. The proposed amendments would also revise the 
compliance provisions by clarifying the dates by which all plants must 
meet the rule requirements and adding provisions specifying the time 
allowed to demonstrate initial compliance for a new or reconstructed 
potline, anode bake furnace, or pitch storage tank as well as an 
existing potline or anode bake furnace that has been shutdown and 
subsequently restarted. We are proposing these amendments to reduce 
compliance uncertainties and improve understanding of the final rule 
requirements.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before May 16, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by April 7, 2003, a public hearing will be held on April 
14, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments must be submitted by mail (in duplicate, 
if possible) to: Primary Aluminum NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), U.S. EPA West, Mailcode 6102T, Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0031. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by hand delivery, 
or courier. See Supplementary Information for further information on 
how to submit comments. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket 
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC.

[[Page 12646]]

    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC at 10 
a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present 
oral testimony should notify Dorothy Apple, Policy, Planning and 
Standards Group (MD-C439-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone (919) 541-4487 at least 2 days in advance of the 
hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Fruh, Policy, Planning, and 
Standards Group (MD-C439-04), Emission Standards Division, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2837, electronic mail address, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by 
this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
              Category                NAICS \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................     331312  Establishments
                                                  primarily engaged in
                                                  producing primary
                                                  aluminum by
                                                  electrolytically
                                                  reducing alumina.
Federal government..................  .........  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.......  .........  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry 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 40 CFR 63.840 of the 
national emission standards for primary aluminum reduction plants. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of these amendments 
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031. The official public docket is 
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the 
Primary Aluminum NESHAP Docket at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), 
EPA West, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20004. The Docket Center 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 Access. 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 
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the 
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public 
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is 
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is 
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility previously 
identified in this document.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt 
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked 
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed 
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and 
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your 
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any 
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk 
or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of 
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on 
the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not 
edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided 
in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select 
``search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031. The system is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail

[[Page 12647]]

address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-
mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Primary 
Aluminum NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA West, 
Mailcode 6102T, Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031.
    By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments (in duplicate, 
if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0031. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket 
Center's normal hours of operation as identified in this document.
    By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention 
Primary Aluminum NESHAP Docket, Docket ID OAR-2002-0031.
    CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through 
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto 
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mailcode C404-02, U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0031. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by 
marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI 
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and 
then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, 
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. What is the proposed POM emission limitation for VSS2 
potlines?
    B. What are the proposed changes to the compliance provisions?
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. Why are we proposing to revise the POM emission limitation 
for VSS2 potlines?
    B. Why are we proposing to revise the compliance provisions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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 & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a technology-based program to 
reduce stationary source emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
from major sources. Major sources of HAP are those that have the 
potential to emit greater than 10 tons/year of any one HAP or 25 tons/
year of any combination of HAP. The CAA requires the national emission 
standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions 
that is achievable. This level of control is commonly known as the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    On October 7, 1997, the EPA published final standards (62 FR 52384) 
for the control of HAP from primary aluminum reduction plants (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LL). The rule contains emission limitations and 
standards applicable to total fluorides (TF), which is a surrogate for 
hydrogen fluoride, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). These limits 
apply to each new or existing potline, paste production plant, and 
anode bake furnace; they also apply to each new pitch storage tank 
associated with primary aluminum production and located at a major 
source.
    After promulgation, two significant compliance-related issues were 
identified by the industry. The concerns at issue are:
    [sbull] Review of the POM emission limit for the vertical stud 
Soderberg-2 (VSS2) subcategory of existing potlines, based on the 
availability of additional data; and
    [sbull] The date by which the owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate initial compliance for an existing 
potline or anode bake furnace that has been shut down and subsequently 
restarted.
    We received a petition from the industry requesting a proposed 
rulemaking to revise the POM emission limits for VSS2 potlines. As part 
of the request, the petition included additional test data (collected 
from 1999 through 2000) for all VSS2 potlines. We agreed to analyze the 
additional data and evaluate the achievability of the existing MACT 
limit for POM.

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments

A. What Is the Proposed POM Emission Limitation for VSS2 Potlines?

    The VSS2 subcategory includes all existing vertical stud Soderberg 
potlines. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) in Sec.  63.843 of the existing rule 
limits POM emissions from each existing VSS2 potline to 1.8 kilograms 
(kg) per Megagram (Mg) or 3.6 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of aluminum 
produced for each potline. The proposed amendments would change the POM 
limit to 2.85 kg/Mg (5.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced. Table 2 of 
subpart LL gives the POM emission limits for potlines at those plants 
that comply by emissions averaging. The proposed POM emission averaging 
limits for VSS2 potlines are:

                                          Quarterly POM Limit (lb/ton)
                                        [For a given number of potlines]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2 lines          3 lines          4 lines         5 lines         6 lines         7 lines         8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         5.0              4.7             4.5             4.4             4.3             4.2             4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12648]]

A justification for the proposed revised limits is discussed further in 
section III.A of this document.

B. What Are the Proposed Changes to the Compliance Provisions?

    Section 63.847(a) of the rule currently requires the owner or 
operator to demonstrate initial compliance by specified dates. The 
proposed amendments would clarify the introductory text of paragraph 
(a) by replacing the phrase ``demonstrate initial compliance'' with the 
word ``comply.'' This proposed change distinguishes the compliance date 
of the rule from the date by which a plant must actually conduct their 
initial performance test.
    Section 63.847(c) of the rule currently requires the owner or 
operator to conduct an initial performance test during the first month 
following the applicable compliance date. For a new or reconstructed 
affected source, we are proposing that the owner or operator conduct 
the initial performance test by:
    [sbull] The 180th day after startup for a potline (or potroom 
group). The 180-day period would start when the first pot in a potline 
(or potroom group) is energized.
    [sbull] The 45th day after startup for an anode bake furnace. The 
45-day period would start at the beginning of the first anode bake 
cycle.
    [sbull] The 30th day after startup for a pitch storage tank (if the 
owner or operator elects to conduct an initial performance test rather 
than a design evaluation). Today's proposed amendments would not change 
the timing of the initial performance test for existing affected 
sources (i.e., the initial performance test must still be conducted 
during the first month after the compliance date).
    We are also proposing to add performance test dates following 
startup of an existing potline or anode bake furnace that was shut down 
at the time compliance would have otherwise been required and 
subsequently restarted. Again, we are proposing 180 days after startup 
for a potline (or potroom group) and 45 days for an anode bake furnace. 
In addition, we are proposing to amend the notification requirements in 
Sec.  63.850(a) of the rule to require advance notice to the 
Administrator at least 30 days before restart of an affected source 
that has been shut down.
    Appendix A to subpart LL shows the requirements in the General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) that do not apply to primary 
aluminum reduction plants. We are also proposing to amend appendix A to 
reflect the changes in performance test dates and the new notification 
requirement. A detailed explanation for the proposed changes to the 
compliance provisions follows in section III.B of this document.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the POM Emission Limitation for VSS2 
Potlines?

    We received a petition to revise the POM limit for VSS2 potlines, 
which the petitioner said was not achievable. The petitioner believes 
that the limited data used to develop the original emission limit did 
not reflect the normal variability of VSS2 potlines. The petitioner 
submitted additional test data and requested that we reevaluate the 
achievability of the original emission limit. We agreed to consider the 
petition and to analyze the additional data.
    When we promulgated the current rule, we based the POM limit for 
VSS2 potlines on data that consisted of seven performance tests from 
two potlines. We used data for only two of the potlines in this 
subcategory because that was the only data available for calculating 
the MACT floor and determining the MACT level of control. At that time, 
we assumed that these tests for two potlines represented the 
performance level achievable by the best performing VSS2 potlines. This 
assumption was based on the fact that VSS2 potlines are all of the same 
design, operate in the same manner, use the same feed materials, and 
employ the same equipment and work practices to control emissions. We 
had no reason to believe that the original POM limit associated with 
MACT could not be achieved by the affected sources in the subcategory.
    We have subsequently obtained data for the five best-performing 
potlines in the subcategory from additional testing performed during 
1999 and 2000. The database consists of information from 88 runs, which 
is equivalent to 29 performance tests, because one test is the average 
of three runs. The new data cover all months of the year, which means 
that seasonal variations that may affect emission control performance 
(such as changes in ventilation rates) are included. The original data 
covered a period of only 4 months, which does not include seasonal 
variations and does not capture the true variability over time. The 
expanded database is far superior to the original database and more 
representative of the VSS2 subcategory.
    The expanded database indicates that the two potlines we used to 
develop the original emission limit are actually the two best-
performing potlines in the subcategory. Moreover, the data indicate 
that the MACT limit in the current rule is not achievable even by these 
two potlines on a continuing basis. We have revised the MACT floor 
based on the expanded database which is now available. The revised MACT 
floor level of control is 5.7 lb/ton of aluminum instead of 3.6 lb/ton. 
We derived this new MACT floor level of control from the currently 
available data using the same statistical methodology which we employed 
in the original rulemaking.
    Since the data we originally utilized to establish an emission 
standard for this subcategory indicate that lower emissions have been 
attained in some circumstances, we also evaluated the new data to 
determine whether a level of control beyond the revised MACT floor 
would be achievable by the sources in this subcategory. We examined the 
factors affecting the operation of the potlines and the techniques used 
to control emissions. The VSS2 potlines are all designed and operated 
in the same manner and use the same raw materials. The same emission 
controls and work practices are also applied to each of the potlines. 
We have not identified any obvious reasons for the variability in 
performance other than the normal variability associated with 
processes, testing procedures, and temporal variations. In fact, the 
performance of the various potlines from test to test overlaps, and 
although there are small differences in average performance, the 
overall distributions of performance for the VSS2 potlines are similar.
    We have identified no changes in processes, work practices, or 
control strategies that could be implemented to improve the performance 
of an individual potline. Consequently, we believe it is not 
practicable for sources in the VSS2 subcategory to achieve levels of 
control beyond the MACT floor on a consistent basis. Therefore, we are 
proposing to revise the emission limit to 5.7 lb/ton, to represent the 
MACT level of control for VSS2 potlines.
    The petitioner had requested that we revise the emission limit to 
7.2 lb/ton; however, our analysis indicates that the revised emission 
limit should be 5.7 lb/ton. We discussed with the petitioner what test 
data should be used to assess emission control performance and what 
procedures should be used to analyze the data. Our goal was to be 
consistent with the approach used for the original limit and also for 
limits developed for other subcategories of potlines. Based on these 
discussions, we believe that the petitioner understands and accepts our 
rationale for the new emission limit we are proposing. Although this 
numerical emission limit differs from the limit

[[Page 12649]]

proposed by the petitioner, we construe the issuance of this proposal 
as a decision to grant the petition.

B. Why Are We Proposing To Amend the Compliance Provisions?

    Section 63.847 of the existing rule establishes compliance 
provisions for affected sources. Section 63.847(a) gives compliance 
dates but requires the owner or operator to demonstrate initial 
compliance by the specified dates. Upon review, we believe the phrase 
``demonstrate initial performance'' could cause misunderstanding of the 
rule requirements. For example, regulatory authorities could interpret 
this provision to require a new or reconstructed affected source to 
demonstrate initial compliance (i.e., conduct the performance test) at 
startup. For this reason, we are proposing to revise the introductory 
text in paragraph (a) to clearly state that ``the owner or operator of 
a primary aluminum plant must comply with the requirements of this 
subpart by'' the specified dates in the rule. This clarification would 
not change any of the compliance dates in the existing rule.
    Section 63.847(c) of the existing rule requires the owner or 
operator to demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance 
test for a potline or anode bake furnace ``during the first month 
following the compliance date.'' The rule does not address the 
questions of either when initial compliance must be demonstrated for a 
new or reconstructed affected source or for an existing affected source 
that is shut down and subsequently restarted.
    Since promulgation of the rule, nearly all primary aluminum plants 
in northwestern States shut down their potlines as a result of the 
short supply and high cost of electric power in that region. Some 
plants may curtail operations through 2003. As the electrical power 
crisis has eased, primary aluminum plants have begun returning these 
potlines and anode bake furnaces to active service. In some cases, 
regulatory authorities have interpreted the rule to require that plants 
conduct the performance test for these potlines and anode bake furnaces 
within the first month after startup. While 30 days is sufficient time 
to conduct a performance test for an existing potline or anode bake 
furnace which is currently in operation, we believe that 30 days is not 
sufficient time for startup conditions. A 30-day period would require 
plants to demonstrate compliance before the startup of a potline could 
feasibly be completed and to conduct testing under conditions that are 
not representative of normal operation.
    Aluminum potlines are unique emission sources in the sense that the 
affected source consists of numerous (100 to 150 or more) smelting 
cells. At the beginning of startup, a small number of cells are charged 
with raw materials. When they become functional, they provide a molten 
liquid bath that is used to start up additional cells. All of the cells 
cannot be started and stabilized simultaneously because the 
electrolytic chemical process requires a stable equilibrium between the 
molten bath and cell operating temperatures. Until equilibrium is 
achieved, the emission rates from the potline are not representative of 
normal operation. For these reasons, the startup, stabilization, and 
testing of an existing potline after a long-term shutdown may require 
as long as 6 months to complete.
    Therefore, we are proposing additional time for initial startup of 
new or reconstructed potlines and startup of existing potlines that 
have been shut down for long periods. The additional time proposed (180 
days) is reasonable and is consistent with Sec.  63.7 of the General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which allows up to 180 days 
after startup for existing, new, or reconstructed affected sources to 
come online, complete performance tests, and establish parametric 
monitoring limits.
    Anode bake furnaces do not have the startup complexities associated 
with the dozens of cells in a potline. Bake furnaces are restarted a 
few sections at a time and require several days rather than several 
weeks to stabilize. For this reason, we are proposing to allow 45 days 
after initial startup of a new or reconstructed anode bake furnace or 
startup of an existing anode bake furnace that was shut down for a long 
period and subsequently restarted.
    We are proposing that the 180-day period for startup of a potline 
begin when the first pot is energized. For an anode bake furnace, the 
45-day period would start at the beginning of the first anode bake 
furnace cycle. This approach is consistent with the definition of 
startup in the General Provisions, ``* * * the setting in operation of 
an affected source for any purpose.''
    Existing paste production plants also may have been shut down along 
with potlines and anode bake furnaces. However, no performance test or 
other type of compliance demonstration is required for paste plants. 
Initial compliance with the equipment standard for this affected source 
is based on inspections and review of their records to ensure that the 
proper equipment has been installed. Under the rule, unless a 
compliance extension is granted, an existing paste production plant 
must comply with the rule by the required date. A new or reconstructed 
paste production plant must meet the rule requirements upon startup; 
this also applies if the plant has been shut down and subsequently 
restarted. However, the owner or operator is required to provide 
advance notice of the startup.
    Section 63.847(g) of the rule allows the owner or operator to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements for new pitch 
storage tanks either by conducting a performance test or by a design 
evaluation. The proposed amendments would require the owner or operator 
to demonstrate initial compliance within 30 days of the compliance date 
if the owner or operator elects to conduct a performance test. We are 
proposing a 30-day period because we believe this is adequate time to 
complete the emission test.
    During startup, the plant must meet all of the EPA requirements for 
maintaining control equipment and minimizing emissions as much as 
possible during the startup period. We have not added specific 
requirements to the rule because this is already required by the 
operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.  63.6(e) of the General 
Provisions. Section 63.6(e)(3) also requires the owner or operator to 
operate and maintain the affected source and control equipment 
according to the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;

[[Page 12650]]

    (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.
    It has been determined that the proposed amendments are not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and are therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements in the 
1997 NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants under the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0360. A copy of information 
collection request (ICR) No. 1767.02 may be obtained from Susan Auby by 
mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection 
Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-
1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Today's proposed rule amendments will have no impact on the 
information collection burden estimates made previously. The proposed 
requirement for advance notification of startup for an existing 
affected source that has been shut down has no impact because similar 
advance notification is already required for a new or reconstructed 
affected source. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration defines a small entity in 
this industry sector as: (1) A firm having no more than 1,000 
employees; (2) a government 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 that is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small 
entities. None of the plants in this industry is classified as a small 
entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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.
    Today's proposed amendments contain no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
tribal governments. The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments 
do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of 
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's proposed 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA.

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.'' These 
proposed 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. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to the proposed 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.''
    These proposed amendments will not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. They will 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. 
No tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these proposed amendments.

[[Page 12651]]

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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, the EPA must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to 
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 proposed 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 That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    These proposed 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.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C 272 note), directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications, 
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or 
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Primary aluminum reduction plants, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 6, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart LL--[AMENDED]

    2. Section 63.843 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.843  Emission limits for existing sources.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) 2.85 kg/Mg (5.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS2 
potline.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.847 is amended by:
    a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a); and
    b. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.847  Compliance provisions.

    (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator of a primary aluminum 
plant must comply with the requirements of this subpart by:
* * * * *
    (c) Performance test dates. Following approval of the site-specific 
test plan, the owner or operator must conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate initial compliance according to the procedures in paragraph 
(d) of this section. If a performance test has been conducted on the 
primary control system for potlines or for the anode bake furnace 
within the 12 months prior to the compliance date, the results of that 
performance test may be used to demonstrate initial compliance. The 
owner or operator must conduct the performance test:
    (1) During the first month following the compliance date for an 
existing potline (or potroom group) or anode bake furnace;
    (2) By the date determined according to the requirements in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section for a new or 
reconstructed potline, anode bake furnace, or pitch storage tank (for 
which the owner or operator elects to conduct an initial performance 
test):
    (i) By the 180th day following startup for a potline or potroom 
group. The 180-day period starts when the first pot in a potline or 
potroom group is energized.
    (ii) By the 45th day following startup for an anode bake furnace. 
The 45-day period starts at the beginning of the first anode bake 
cycle.
    (iii) By the 30th day following startup for a pitch storage tank. 
The 30-day period starts when the tank is first used to store pitch.
    (3) By the date determined according to the requirements in 
paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section for an existing potline or 
anode bake furnace that was shut down at the time compliance would have 
otherwise been required and is subsequently restarted:
    (i) By the 180th day following startup for a potline or potroom 
group. The 180-day period starts when the first pot in a potline or 
potroom group is energized.
    (ii) By the 45th day following startup for an anode bake furnace. 
The 45-day period starts at the beginning of the first anode bake 
cycle.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.850 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the 
end of paragraph (a)(7) and removing the period at the end of paragraph 
(a)(8) and replacing it with ``; and'' and by adding new paragraph 
(a)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.850  Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (9) One-time notification of startup of an existing potline or 
potroom group, anode bake furnace, or paste production plant that was 
shut down for a long period and subsequently restarted. The owner or 
operator must provide written notice to the Administrator at least 30 
days before the startup.
* * * * *
    5. Table 2 to subpart LL is amended by revising the entry for 
``VSS2 potlines'' to read as follows:

[[Page 12652]]



                        Table 2 to Subpart LL.--Potline POM Limits for Emission Averaging
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton)  [for given number of potlines]
            Type             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                2 lines     3 lines     4 lines     5 lines     6 lines     7 lines     8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
VSS2........................        5.0         4.7         4.5         4.4         4.3         4.2         4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Appendix A to subpart LL is amended by:
    a. Revising the title of Appendix A;
    b. Adding a new entry for Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) in 
numerical order; and
    c. Adding a new entry for Sec.  63.9(b)(1)-(b)(5) in numerical 
order.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

           Appendix A to Subpart LL.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     General provisioins citation            Requirement         Applies to subpart LL           Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.7(a)(2) (ii) and (iii)............  Performance testing      No.....................  Subpart LL specifies
                                        requirements.                                     performance test
                                                                                          dates.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.9(b) (1)-(b)(5)...................  Initial notifications..  Yes, except as noted in  Sec.   63.850(a)(9)
                                                                 ``comment'' column.      includes requirement
                                                                                          for startup of an
                                                                                          existing affected
                                                                                          source that has been
                                                                                          shut down.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-6303 Filed 3-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P