[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56699-56762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21031]



[[Page 56699]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 181

September 18, 2015

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 56700]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544; FRL-9932-44-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ40


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR), and the rule review, we conducted for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production source category regulated under national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In this action, we are 
finalizing several amendments to the NESHAP based on the rule review. 
These final amendments include a requirement to report performance 
testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); provisions 
allowing owners and operators to change furnace classifications; 
requirements to account for unmeasured emissions during compliance 
testing for group 1 furnaces that do not have add-on control devices; 
alternative compliance options for the operating and monitoring 
requirements for sweat furnaces; compliance provisions for hydrogen 
fluoride; provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and other corrections and 
clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring 
and performance testing requirements. These amendments will improve the 
monitoring, compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: Effective date: This final action is effective on September 18, 
2015.
    Compliance dates: The compliance date for the final amendments 
listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(b) for existing secondary aluminum production 
affected sources is March 16, 2016. The compliance date for the final 
amendments listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(c) for existing affected sources is 
September 18, 2017. The owner or operator of a new affected source that 
commences construction or reconstruction after February 14, 2012, must 
comply with all of the requirements listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(b) and (c) 
by September 18, 2015 or upon startup, whichever is later.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
September 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1390; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Scott Throwe, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC West Building, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 
(202) 564-7013; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use 
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not 
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACGIH American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
APCD air pollution control device
AMOS ample margin of safety
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
Dscf dry standard cubic feet
Dscm dry standard cubic meters
EJ environmental justice
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
g grams
gr grains
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrogen chloride
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
lb pounds
lbs/yr pounds per year
LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOAEL no observed adverse effects level
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O&M operation and maintenance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PEL probable effect levels
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SAB Science Advisory Board

[[Page 56701]]

SAPU secondary aluminum processing unit
SBA Small Business Administration
SOP standard operating procedures
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TEQ toxicity equivalents
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology Fate, Transport and 
Ecological Exposure model
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UBC used beverage containers
UF uncertainty factor
[mu]/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
URE unit risk estimate

    Background Information. On February 14, 2012, and December 8, 2014, 
the EPA proposed decisions based on the RTR and proposed revisions to 
the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP based on review of the rule. 
In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions to the rule. 
We summarize major comments we timely received regarding the proposed 
rule and provide responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments is available in the document, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Aluminum Production. Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule (77 FR 8576, February 
14, 2012) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 72874, December 8, 2014), 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. A ``track changes'' version of the 
regulatory language that shows the regulatory changes in this action is 
also available in the docket for the convenience of the reader.
    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and 
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production source category in our February 14, 2012, and December 8, 
2014, proposals?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
    G. What materials are being incorporated by reference?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Secondary Aluminum Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
Source Category
    C. Testing of Group 1 Furnaces That Do Not Have Add-on Pollution 
Control Devices
    D. Changing Furnace Classification
    E. Flow Rate Measurements and Annual Inspections of Capture/
Collection Systems
    F. Compliance Dates
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

   Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NAICS
                        Source category                          code a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Aluminum Production Facilities........................    331312
Secondary Aluminum Production Facilities......................    331314
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing Facilities......    331315
Aluminum Extruded Product Manufacturing Facilities............    331316
Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing Facilities.................    331319
Aluminum Die Casting Facilities...............................    331521
Aluminum Foundry Facilities...................................    331524
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the secondary aluminum production 
source category. To determine whether your facility is affected, you 
should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of 
this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will be available on the Internet through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 
of this final action at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum2nd/alum2pg.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA 
will post the Federal Register version at this same Web site.
    Additional information is available on the (RTR) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, and links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a

[[Page 56702]]

petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by November 17, 2015. Under CAA section 
307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be 
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by 
the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ``[i]f the 
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that 
it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 
public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the 
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial 
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of 
the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 77 FR 8576 and 79 FR 72874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 
112(f)(2)(A). NRC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``If 
EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide 
an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt 
those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA initially promulgated the Secondary Aluminum Production 
NESHAP on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15690). The rule was amended on 
December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79808), September 3, 2004 (69 FR 53980), 
October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57513), and December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75320). The 
standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. The existing 
Subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary aluminum 
production facilities that are major sources of HAP and that operate 
aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, group 2 furnaces, 
sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and 
secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs). The SAPUs include group 1 
furnaces and in-line fluxers. The Subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP 
emissions from secondary aluminum production facilities that are area 
sources of HAP only with respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) 
from thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating 
kilns, group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs. The secondary 
aluminum industry consists of approximately 161 secondary aluminum 
production facilities, of which the EPA estimates 53 to be major 
sources of HAP. Several of the secondary aluminum facilities are co-
located with primary aluminum, coil coating, and possibly other source 
category facilities. Natural gas boilers or process heaters may also be 
co-located at a few secondary aluminum facilities.
    The standards promulgated in 2000 established emission limits for 
particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP, total 
hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP

[[Page 56703]]

other than D/F, D/F expressed as toxicity equivalents (TEQ), and 
hydrogen chloride (HCl) as a surrogate for acid gases including 
hydrogen fluoride (HF), chlorine, and fluorine. HAP are emitted from 
the following affected sources: Aluminum scrap shredders (subject to PM 
standards), thermal chip dryers (subject to standards for THC and D/F), 
scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns (subject to standards 
for PM, D/F, HCl, and THC), sweat furnaces (subject to D/F standards), 
dross-only furnaces (subject to PM standards), rotary dross coolers 
(subject to PM standards), group 1 furnaces (subject to standards for 
PM, HCl, and D/F), and in-line fluxers (subject to standards for PM and 
HCl). Group 2 furnaces and certain in-line fluxers are subject to work 
practice standards. For a more detailed description of the industry, 
processes, and the key requirements of the MACT rule, see the 2014 
supplemental proposal (79 FR 72879, December 8, 2014).

C. What changes did we propose for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
source category in our February 14, 2012, and December 8, 2014, 
proposals?

    On February 14, 2012, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (77 FR 8576) for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, that took into consideration the 
RTR analyses and other reviews of the MACT rule. We proposed that no 
amendments to Subpart RRR were necessary as a result of the RTR 
analyses. However, we proposed several amendments to correct and 
clarify existing requirements based on other reviews of the rule, 
including:
     Proposed criteria and procedures for changing furnace 
classification (i.e., operating mode) and a limit on frequency of 
switching furnace classification of once per 6-month period, with an 
exception for control device maintenance requiring shutdown;
     Proposed amendments to clarify that performance tests 
under multiple scenarios may be required in order to reflect the 
emissions ranges for each regulated pollutant;
     Proposed compliance alternatives for testing of furnaces 
that do not have add-on air pollution control devices (also referred to 
as ``uncontrolled furnaces''), i.e., either temporary installation of 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 
hooding or, for existing uncontrolled furnaces, use of an assumption of 
67-percent capture efficiency for furnace exhaust. If the source fails 
to demonstrate compliance using the 67-percent capture efficiency 
assumption, the source would have to retest within 90 days using 
hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines or submit a petition that such 
hoods are impractical and propose alternative testing procedures that 
will minimize unmeasured fugitive emissions;
     With regard to annual inspections of capture/collection 
systems, proposed codification of our existing interpretation that 
annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements using EPA 
Reference Methods 1 and 2;
     Proposed removal of exemptions from the requirement to 
comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR emission standards during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), clarification of 
related provisions, and an alternative method for demonstrating 
compliance with certain emission limits during startup and shutdown;
     Proposed requirement for electronic submission of test 
results to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and 
improve data accessibility; and
     Proposed compliance date for existing affected sources to 
comply with the proposed amendments within 90 days after publication of 
the final rule.
    In the 2012 proposal, we also proposed several other corrections 
and clarifications of the rule on the following topics based on 
recommendations and suggestions from individual representatives from 
state regulatory agencies and industry, as well as based on EPA 
experience, to correct errors in the rule and to help clarify the 
intent and implementation of the rule:
     ACGIH Guidelines;
     Testing worst-case scenarios;
     Lime injection rate;
     Flux monitoring;
     Cover flux;
     Capture and collection system definition;
     Bale breakers;
     Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS);
     Sidewell furnaces;
     Testing representative units;
     Initial performance tests;
     Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln and scrap shredder 
definitions;
     Group 2 furnace definition;
     HF emissions compliance;
     SAPU definition;
     Clean charge definition;
     Residence time definition;
     SAPU feed/charge rate;
     Dross-only versus dross/scrap furnaces;
     Applicability of rule to area sources;
     Altering parameters during testing with new scrap streams;
     Controlled furnaces that are temporarily idled for 24 
hours or longer; and
     Annual compliance certification for area sources.
    In the December 8, 2014, supplemental proposal (79 FR 72874), we 
presented a revised risk review and a revised technology review. 
Similar to the 2012 proposal, we found risks due to emissions of air 
toxics to be acceptable from this source category and we identified no 
cost-effective controls under the updated AMOS analysis or the 
technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. We proposed 
no revisions to the emission standards based on the revised risk and 
technology review. However, in the 2014 supplemental proposal, we 
supplemented and modified several of the proposed technical corrections 
and rule clarifications from the 2012 proposal, including the 
following:
     Revised proposed limit on the total number of furnace 
operating mode changes (i.e., frequency) of four times in any 6-month 
period, with the ability of sources to apply to the appropriate 
authority for additional furnace operating mode changes;
     Revised wording in proposed 40 CFR 63.1511(b)(1) related 
to worst-case scenario testing clarifying under what conditions the 
performance tests are to be conducted;
     Revised proposed compliance requirements for performance 
testing of uncontrolled furnaces, such that if a source: (1) Chooses to 
use an assumption of 67-percent \2\ capture/collection efficiency, 
instead of installing temporary hooding according to ACGIH guidelines, 
and (2) fails to demonstrate compliance using the 67-percent efficiency 
assumption, then the source must either retest using ACGIH hooding 
within 180 days (rather than the 90 days specified in the 2012 
proposal) or petition the appropriate authority within 180 days that 
installing ACGIH hooding is impractical and propose alternative testing 
procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The capture efficiency of 66.67 percent was rounded to 67 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revised proposed requirement that emission sources comply 
with the emissions limits at all times, including periods of SSM. 
Proposed definitions of startup and shutdown as well as an additional 
alternative method for demonstrating compliance with certain emission 
limits during startup and shutdown;
     Revised proposed requirements for annual inspection of 
capture/collection

[[Page 56704]]

systems to allow additional compliance options;
     Revised proposed compliance dates of 180 days for certain 
requirements and 2 years for other requirements; and
     Revised operating and monitoring requirements for sweat 
furnaces to allow an additional compliance option.
    In addition, we withdrew our 2012 proposal to include provisions 
establishing an affirmative defense in light of a recent court decision 
vacating an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's CAA section 112(d) 
regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacating 
affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 112(d) rule establishing 
emission standards for Portland cement kilns).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
source category. This action also finalizes changes to the NESHAP, 
including technical corrections and rule clarifications as well as 
alternative compliance options.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production source category?

    There are no rule amendments based on the risk review for this 
source category.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category?

    There are no rule amendments based on the technology review for 
this source category.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) 
of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in 
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that 
some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that 
apply at all times. We have also revised Appendix A to Subpart RRR of 
part 63 (the General Provisions applicability table) in several 
respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we have 
eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement 
that the source develop an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and 
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is related to the SSM 
exemption as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized 
again here.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not established alternate emission standards for those 
periods.
    We are finalizing amendments to eliminate provisions that exempt 
sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable 
CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. As 
explained in the 2012 proposal and 2014 supplemental proposal, because 
the scrap processed at secondary aluminum production facilities is the 
source of emissions, we expect emissions during startup and shutdown 
would be no higher, and most likely significantly lower, than emissions 
during normal operations since no scrap is processed during those 
periods. The final amendments include alternative methods for 
demonstrating compliance with applicable emission limits that are 
expressed in units of pounds per ton of feed/charge, or microgram 
([mu]g) TEQ or nanogram (ng) TEQ per megagram (Mg) of feed/charge, 
based on emissions during startup and shutdown and, alternatively, 
demonstrating compliance by keeping records that show that during 
startup and shutdown, the feed/charge rate was zero, the flux rate was 
zero, and the affected source or emission unit was heated with 
electricity, propane, or natural gas as the sole sources of heat or was 
not heated. See 40 CFR 63.1513(f).
    We are also finalizing definitions for the periods of startup and 
shutdown to account for the fact that many furnaces are batch 
operations and are often in a standby condition that, under the 
proposed definitions, might have been considered to be shutdown. The 
final definition of shutdown recognizes that shutdown begins when the 
addition of feed/charge is halted, the heat sources are removed, and 
product is removed from the equipment to the greatest extent 
practicable, and ends when the equipment cools to near ambient 
temperature. The final definition recognizes that, after tapping, most 
furnaces (tilting furnaces are an exception) retain a molten metal heel 
and are not emptied completely. In the final amendments, startup is 
defined as beginning with equipment warming from a shutdown and ending 
at the point that feed/charge or flux is introduced.
    Other SSM-related changes include:
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1510(s)(2)(iv), 63.1515(b)(10), 
63.1516(a), 63.1516(b)(1)(v), and 63.1517(b)(16)(i) to reflect the 
revised requirements related to periods of SSM;
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1506(a)(5) to incorporate the general 
duty from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) to minimize emissions; and
     Adding 40 CFR 63.1516(d), and 40 CFR 63.1517(b)(18) and 
(19) to require reporting and recordkeeping associated with periods of 
SSM.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA 
section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar 
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent 
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when 
setting emission standards. As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, the 
phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 
12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the 
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies 
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts 
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 
analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the 
type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations 
of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a 
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the

[[Page 56705]]

EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. 
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of 
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources 
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general 
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of 
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' 
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a 
malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any 
other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution 
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a 
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse 
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 
would take days to shutdown, the source would go from 99-percent 
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher 
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day 
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source 
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for 
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and 
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA 
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions 
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation 
of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable, and not caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA 
interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is 
reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. 
Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of 
the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good 
faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
    In the 2012 proposed rule, the EPA proposed to include an 
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by 
malfunctions. Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case 
enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility, it proposed to 
include the affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach 
and more regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 
1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case 
enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. 
v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 
formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets beyond the control of 
the permit holder.''). Under the proposed regulatory affirmative 
defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the 
affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be 
assessed. After the 2012 proposal, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in 
one of the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 
1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in CAA 
section 112 rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement 
kilns). The Court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an 
affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under the 
CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases 
lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court 
found: ``As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts 
determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are 
`appropriate.' '' See NRDC at 1063 (``[U]nder this statute, deciding 
whether penalties are `appropriate' in a given private civil suit is a 
job for the courts, not EPA.'').\3\ In light of NRDC, the EPA in the 
2014 supplemental proposal withdrew the proposed affirmative defense 
and is not including a regulatory affirmative defense provision in the 
final rule. As explained above, if a source is unable to comply with 
emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its 
case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as 
appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, in an EPA or 
citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider 
any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. 
NRDC at 1064 (arguments that violation were caused by unavoidable 
technology failure can be made to the courts in future civil cases when 
the issue arises). The same is true for the presiding officer in EPA 
administrative enforcement actions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Court's reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil judicial 
actions. The Court noted that ``EPA's ability to determine whether 
penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends 
only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by 
a court.'' Id.
    \4\ Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA's authority 
to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available 
in administrative enforcement actions, the EPA is not including such 
an affirmative defense in the final rule. As explained above, such 
an affirmative defense is not necessary, and in the 2014 
supplemental proposal, we withdrew the proposed affirmative defense. 
Moreover, assessment of penalties for violatiing caused by 
malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings 
should be consistent, Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both the 
Administrator and the Court to take specified criteria into account 
when assessing penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are revising the General Provisions table (Appendix A to Subpart 
RRR of 40 CFR part 63) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the 
``yes'' in

[[Page 56706]]

column ``Applies to RRR'' to ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes 
the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that 
section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the 
elimination of the SSM exemption. We have instead added general duty 
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1506(a)(5) that reflects the general duty 
to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods 
covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is promulgating for Subpart RRR does not include that 
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not 
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant 
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.1506(a)(5).
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan 
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is removing the SSM exemptions. Therefore, 
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such 
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure 
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance 
and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from 
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision 
and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standards apply 
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is revising 
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from 
opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court 
in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and 
held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standards apply 
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is revising 
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. 
The EPA is instead adding a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.1513(f). The performance testing requirements we are adding differ 
from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several 
respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded 
startup and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' 
for purposes of performance testing. The revised performance testing 
provisions include alternative methods for demonstrating compliance 
with emission limits that are expressed in units of pounds per ton of 
feed/charge, or [mu]g TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed/charge. Compliance 
with such limits during startup and shutdown can be demonstrated using 
the emissions measured during startup and shutdown along with the 
measured feed/charge rate from the most recent performance test 
associated with a production rate greater than zero, or the rated 
capacity of the affected source if no prior performance test data are 
available. Alternatively, compliance can be demonstrated by keeping 
records that show that during startup and shutdown, the feed/charge 
rate was zero, the flux rate was zero, and the affected source or 
emission unit either was heated with electricity, propane, or natural 
gas as the sole sources of heat or was not heated. As in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1), we are requiring in 40 CFR 63.1511(b) that performance 
tests conducted under this subpart not be conducted during malfunctions 
because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of 
normal operating conditions. The EPA is adding language in 40 CFR 
63.1517(b)(19) that requires the owner or operator to record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions are representative of startup and shutdown 
operations. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make 
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to 
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the 
Administrator upon request, but does not specifically require the 
information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is adding to 
this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the 
requirement to record the information.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Appendix A to Subpart 
RRR of 40 CFR part 63) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to ``no.'' The cross-
references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those 
subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control 
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.8((d)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``Yes, except for last sentence which refers to an SSM plan. SSM plans 
are not required.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8((d)(3) refers to 
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer 
applicable.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements 
during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer 
necessary because the EPA is promulgating that recordkeeping and 
reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and 
shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup 
and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason 
to retain additional records for startup and shutdown periods. However, 
we are adding an additional recordkeeping provision at 40 CFR 
63.1517(b)(18) for owners and operators that wish to demonstrate 
compliance with emission limits that are expressed in units of pounds 
per ton of feed/charge, or [mu]g TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed/charge, 
during startup and shutdown by keeping records that show that during 
startup and shutdown no feed/charge or flux was added, only clean fuel 
was used, or no fuel was used.

[[Page 56707]]

    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is adding such requirements 
to 40 CFR 63.1517. The regulatory text we are adding differs from the 
General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions 
require the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and 
duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and 
monitoring equipment. The EPA is applying the recordkeeping requirement 
to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the 
source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than 
the ``occurrence.''
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' in column ``Applies to RRR'' to 
``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires sources to record 
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with 
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM 
plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable 
under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions 
and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 
63.1517.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' to ``no.'' When applicable, the 
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to 
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The 
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer 
be required.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' to ``no.'' When applicable, the 
provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM 
plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the 
SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements 
of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is eliminating this 
requirement because SSM plans will no longer be required, and, 
therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose.
    We are revising the General Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5), including (5)(i) and (ii), by changing the ``yes'' in 
column ``Applies to RRR'' to ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the 
reporting requirements for SSM. We will no longer require owners or 
operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction 
are consistent with an SSM plan or report when actions taken during a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, 
because SSM plans will no longer be required. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is adding reporting 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.1516(d). The replacement language differs 
from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic 
SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are requiring sources that fail 
to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information 
concerning such events in the semi-annual excess emission report 
already required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. The report must 
contain the emission unit ID, monitor ID, pollutant or parameter 
monitored, beginning date and time of event, end date and time of the 
event, cause of the deviation or exceedance, corrective action taken, a 
list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity 
of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters. The EPA is promulgating this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This section provides a summary of other changes to the NESHAP. 
More details and further explanation of these changes are provided in 
section IV of this preamble and/or in the response to comments 
document, which is available in the docket for this action. These other 
changes include the following:
    1. Clarification of applicability of rule provisions to area 
sources. We are finalizing revisions to clarify which operating, 
monitoring, performance testing, and annual compliance certification 
requirements apply to area sources.
    2. Addition or revision of definitions. We added definitions for 
bale breaker, capture and collection system, HF, round top furnace, 
startup, shutdown, tap, and total reactive fluoride flux injection 
rate. We revised the definitions for aluminum scrap shredder, clean 
charge, cover flux, group 2 furnace, HCl, residence time, scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kiln, and SAPU.
    3. Revision of provisions to include HF. We have revised 40 CFR 
63.1503, 63.1505, 63.1506, 63.1510, 63.1511, 63.1512, 63.1513, 63.1516, 
and Table 1 of the rule to address HF in the emission standards and in 
the performance testing, monitoring, and compliance demonstration 
provisions for group 1 furnaces.
    4. Addition of criteria for changing furnace classifications and an 
allowed frequency of such changes of four times in any 6-month period. 
We are finalizing requirements for changing furnace classifications in 
40 CFR 63.1510, 63.1514, and 63.1517 of the final rule.
    5. Revisions to operating requirements. We are finalizing revisions 
to operating requirements with respect to the following:
     Provisions for controlled group 1 furnaces that will be 
idled for at least 24 hours in 40 CFR 63.1506(m)(7) and Table 2;
     A requirement for lime injection rate verification in 40 
CFR 63.1506(m), 63.1510(i)(4), 63.1512, and Table 3; and
     Alternative compliance options for sweat furnaces in lieu 
of following the ACGIH Guidelines.
    6. Revisions to monitoring requirements. We are finalizing 
revisions to monitoring requirements with regard to:
     Annual inspections of capture/collection systems in 40 CFR 
63.1510(d)(2);
     Flux monitoring in 40 CFR 63.1510(j)(4) and in Table 3 of 
the rule;
     Bag leak detection system maintenance in 40 CFR 
63.1510(f)(1)(ii) and in Table 3;
     Monitoring of sidewell group 1 furnaces in 40 CFR 
63.1510(n)(1);
     SAPU compliance with emission factors in 40 CFR 
63.1510(t); and
     Compliance options for sweat furnaces in 40 CFR 
63.1510(d)(3) as an alternative to the monitoring requirements to 
conduct annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1 and 2.
    As a result of comments on the 2012 proposal, we are not finalizing 
an amendment to require a 60-day approval period for operation, 
maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plans.
    7. Revisions to requirements for performance testing/compliance 
demonstration. We are finalizing

[[Page 56708]]

revisions with respect to the following performance testing 
requirements:
     References to ACGIH guidelines in 40 CFR 63.1502 and 
63.1506 and Tables 2 Table 3 for capture and collection systems;
     Section 63.1511(b)(1) and 63.1511(b)(6) to clarify the 
conditions under which performance tests must be conducted in order to 
be representative of testing for a ``worst case'' scenario and that 
multiple tests may be required to characterize all regulated 
pollutants;
     Section 63.1511(b)(3) to clarify testing requirements for 
batch processes;
     Section 63.1511(f)(6) to clarify that testing for 
representative units means that all performance tests must be conducted 
on the same affected source or emission unit;
     Section 63.1511(b) to allow 180 days to conduct initial 
performance testing;
     Section 63.1511(g)(5) with respect to altering parameters 
during performance testing with new feed/charge types; and
     Paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1512(e) to clarify the requirement 
to account for unmeasured emissions during performance testing of 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, including:
    [cir] Requirements for installation of temporary hooding for 
performance testing on uncontrolled group 1 furnaces or, for existing 
uncontrolled furnaces, use of 80-percent capture efficiency assumption;
    [cir] testing requirements for new uncontrolled furnaces;
    [cir] conditions where installation of temporary hooding that meets 
ACGIH guidelines is impractical; and
    [cir] procedures to minimize unmeasured emissions during 
performance testing of uncontrolled furnaces.
    8. Revisions to recordkeeping provisions. We are finalizing 
revisions to 40 CFR 63.1517(b)(4)(ii) with respect to lime injection 
rates, 40 CFR 63.1517(b)(14) with respect to records related to the 
annual inspection of capture/collection systems, and 40 CFR 
63.1517(b)(19) with respect to records related to startups and 
shutdowns.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on September 18, 2015.
    The compliance date for the final amendments listed in 40 CFR 
63.1501(d) for existing secondary aluminum production affected sources 
is March 16, 2016. The compliance date for the final amendments listed 
in 40 CFR 63.1501(c) for existing affected sources is September 18, 
2017. The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after February 14, 2012, must comply 
with all of the requirements of this subparat by September 18, 2015 or 
upon startup, whichever is later.
    In the 2012 proposal, we proposed that existing affected sources 
comply with the proposed amendments within 90 days of the publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register. As described in detail in 
the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 72906), commenters stated that 
the proposed 90-day compliance deadline was insufficient for sources to 
comply with certain provisions of the final rule. These commenters 
recommended compliance dates of 2 to 3 years due to the need to conduct 
operational planning, maintenance planning, reprogramming of data 
acquisition systems, design and installation of hooding equipment, and/
or negotiations with permitting authorities to gain performance test 
plan approvals. The EPA agreed that the proposed 90-day compliance 
deadline was insufficient. However, we did not agree that sources 
needed 2 to 3 years to comply with all the requirements. Based on 
consideration of the comments and further evaluation of the amount of 
time needed for each of the requirements, the 2014 supplemental 
proposal included extended compliance periods of 180 days for the 
revisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(d). In this action, we are 
finalizing compliance deadlines of 180 days after publication of this 
final rule in the Federal Register for the revisions in 40 CFR 
63.1501(d). For the amendments related to HF emissions (40 CFR 
63.1505(i)(4) and (k)(2)), testing of existing uncontrolled furnaces 
(40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6) and (e)(7)), and changing furnace 
classification (40 CFR 63.1514), the EPA agrees that a longer time to 
comply is appropriate and proposed a compliance period of 2 years in 
the 2014 supplemental proposal. In this action, we are finalizing a 
compliance deadline of 2 years after publication of this final rule in 
the Federal Register for the provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(e).

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    As stated in the preamble of the 2012 proposal, the EPA is taking a 
step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators 
of secondary aluminum production facilities to submit electronic copies 
of certain required performance test reports.
    As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, data will be 
collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-
provided software. As discussed in the proposal, the EPA-provided 
software is an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. 
The ERT will generate an electronic report package which will be 
submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 
description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and CEDRI can be accessed through 
the CDX Web site at www.epa.gov/cdx.
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the 
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking 
benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the 
performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 
no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
    As mentioned in the proposed preamble, state, local, and tribal 
agencies will benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of 
performance test data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE 
database. The public will also benefit. Having these data publicly 
available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough 
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development, and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the 
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories, air quality regulations, and enhancing the 
public's access to this important information.

[[Page 56709]]

G. What materials are being incorporated by reference?

    In this final rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that 
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following 
documents described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved December 
1, 2013.
     EPA-625/3-89-016, Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks 
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update, March 1989, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
     Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 
23rd Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5, 
``Exhaust System Design Procedure.'' American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
     Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice 
for Design, 27th Edition, 2010, American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists.
    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we identified ASTM D7520-09 as 
an alternative method for the currently required EPA Method 9. Since 
then, the method has been updated to incorporate specific requirements 
that we included as add-ons to our broad alternative test method 
approval of the 2009 version of the ASTM method. We do not expect any 
concerns changing to the new version because the additional 
requirements are handled by the vendors of the digital camera/software 
systems.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or 
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble for more information).

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Secondary Aluminum Production source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document, which is available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a revised residual 
risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and AMOS, in the 
December 8, 2014, supplemental proposal (79 FR 72874). The results of 
the revised risk assessment are presented briefly below in Table 2 and 
in more detail in the residual risk document, Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Secondary Aluminum Source Category in Support of the 2015 Risk 
and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results. The results of the chronic 
baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on 
estimates of current actual emissions, the maximum individual risk 
(MIR) posed by the Secondary Aluminum Production source category from 
major sources and from area sources was less than 1-in-1 million. The 
estimated cancer incidence was slightly higher for area sources 
compared to the major sources due to the larger number of area sources 
nationwide. The total estimated cancer incidence from secondary 
aluminum production sources from both major and area sources based on 
actual emission levels was 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, with 
emissions of D/F, naphthalene, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 
(PAH) contributing 48 percent, 31 percent, and 11 percent, 
respectively, to this cancer incidence. In addition, we note that there 
are no excess cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million as a 
result of inhalation exposure to actual emissions from this source 
category over a lifetime. The maximum modeled chronic non-cancer hazard 
index (HI) target organ-specific HI (TOSHI) value for the source 
category for both major and area sources based on actual emissions was 
estimated to be 0.04, with HCl emissions from group 1 furnaces 
accounting for 99 percent of the HI.

                                Table 2--Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Maximum individual cancer                  Estimated   Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                       risk (in 1-million) \a\     Estimated    population            TOSHI \b\
                                    ----------------------------    annual     at increased ----------------------------
    Number of facilities modeled                                    cancer        risk of      Based on      Based on      Worst-case maximum screening
                                       Based on      Based on      incidence   cancer  >= 1-    actual       allowable       acute  non-cancer HQ \c\
                                        actual       allowable    (cases/yr)       in-1        emissions     emissions
                                       emissions     emissions        \d\       million \d\      level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Sources (52).................           0.6             4        0.0007             0          0.04           0.1  HQ(REL) = 0.7 (HF).
                                                                                                                         HQ(AEGL1) = 0.4 (HCl).
Area Sources (103).................           0.3             1         0.001             0        0.0003         0.001  NA.
Facility-wide (52 Major Sources)...            70            NA          0.05       760,000             1            NA  NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a \ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category for major sources and D/F emissions from the
  source category for area sources.
\b\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category for both actual and allowable emissions
  is the respiratory system.
\c\ There is no acute dose-response value for D/F. Thus an acute hazard quotient (HQ) value for area sources was not calculated. The maximum off-site HQ
  acute value of 0.7 for actuals is driven by emissions of hydrofluoric acid. See section III.A.3 of the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 72885) for
  explanation of acute dose-response values. Acute assessments are performed based on actual emissions.
\d\ These estimates are based upon actual emissions.

    When considering MACT-allowable emissions, the inhalation cancer 
MIR was estimated to be up to 4-in-1 million, driven by emissions of D/
F compounds, naphthalene, and PAHs from the scrap dryer/delacquering/
decoating kiln. The estimated potential cancer incidence considering 
allowable emissions for both major and area sources was estimated to be 
0.014 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 70 years. 
Approximately 3,400 people were estimated to have cancer risks greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering allowable emissions from

[[Page 56710]]

secondary aluminum production plants. When considering MACT-allowable 
emissions, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was estimated to 
be 0.1, driven by allowable emissions of HCl from the group 1 furnaces.
    b. Acute Risk Results. Our screening analysis for worst-case acute 
impacts based on actual emissions indicates no pollutants exceeding an 
HQ value of 1 based upon the REL.
    c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results. Results of the worst-case 
Tier 1 screening analysis indicated that 36 of the 52 major sources 
exceeded the persistent and bio-accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) emission 
cancer screening rates (based on estimates of actual emissions) for D/
F, and 3 of the 52 major sources exceeded the Tier 1 screen value for 
PAHs. Regarding area sources, 60 of the 103 area sources exceeded the 
PB-HAP emission cancer screening rates (based on estimates of actual 
emissions) for D/F. For the compounds and facilities that did not 
screen out at Tier 1, we conducted a Tier 2 screen. The Tier 2 screen 
replaces some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 with site-specific 
data, including the location of fishable lakes and local precipitation, 
wind direction, and speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-
end assumptions about consumption of local fish and locally grown or 
raised foods (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption for 
fish for the subsistence fisherman scenario and 90th percentile 
consumption for locally grown or raised foods for the farmer scenario). 
It is important to note that, even with the inclusion of some site-
specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the multipathway screening 
analysis is still a very conservative, health-protective assessment 
(e.g., upper-bound consumption of local fish and locally grown and/or 
raised foods). In all likelihood, this analysis will yield results that 
serve as an upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility.
    While the screening analysis was not designed to produce a 
quantitative risk result, the factor by which the emissions exceed the 
threshold serves as a rough gauge of the ``upper-limit'' risks we would 
expect from a facility. Thus, for example, if a facility emitted a PB-
HAP carcinogen at a level 2 times the screening threshold, we can say 
with a high degree of confidence that the actual maximum cancer risks 
will be less than 2-in-1 million. Likewise, if a facility emitted a 
noncancer PB-HAP at a level 2 times the screening threshold, the 
maximum noncancer hazard would represent an HQ less than 2. The high 
degree of confidence comes from the fact that the screens are developed 
using the very conservative (health-protective) assumptions that we 
describe above.
    Based on the Tier 2 cancer screening analysis, 25 of the 52 major 
sources and 34 of the 103 area sources emitted D/F above the Tier 2 
cancer screening thresholds for the subsistence fisher and farmer 
scenarios. The individual D/F emissions were all scaled based on their 
toxicity to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and reported as TEQ. 
The subsistence fisher scenario for the highest risk facilities 
exceeded the D/F cancer threshold by a factor of 80 for the major 
sources and by a factor of 70 for the area sources. The Tier 2 analysis 
also identified 23 of the 52 major sources and 26 of the 103 area 
sources emitting D/F above the Tier 2 cancer screening thresholds for 
the subsistence farmer scenario. The highest exceedance of the Tier 2 
screen value was 40 for the major sources and 20 for the area sources 
for the farmer scenario.
    We had only one major source emitting PAHs above the Tier 2 cancer 
screen value with an exceedance of 2 for the farmer scenario. All PAH 
emissions were scaled based on their toxicity to benzo(a)pyrene and 
reported as TEQ.
    A more refined Tier 3 multipathway screening analysis was conducted 
for six Tier 2 major source facilities. The six facilities were 
selected because the Tier 2 cancer screening assessments for these 
facilities had exceedances greater than or equal to 50 times the screen 
value for the subsistence fisher scenario. The major sources 
represented the highest screened cancer risk for multipathway impacts. 
Therefore, further screening analyses were not performed on the area 
sources. The Tier 3 screen examined the set of lakes from which the 
fisher might ingest fish. Any lakes that appeared not to be fishable or 
not publicly accessible were removed from the assessment, and the 
screening assessment was repeated. After we made the determination the 
critical lakes were fishable, we analyzed plume rise data for each of 
the sites. The Tier 3 screen was conducted only on those HAP that 
exceeded the Tier 2 screening threshold, which for this assessment were 
D/F and PAHs. Both of these PB-HAP are carcinogenic. The Tier 3 screen 
resulted in lowering the maximum exceedance of the screen value for the 
highest site from 80 to 70. Results for the other sites were all less 
than 70. The highest exceedance of the Tier 2 cancer screen value of 40 
for the farmer scenario was also reduced in the Tier 3 screening 
assessment to a value of 30 for the major sources within this source 
category.
    Overall, the refined multipathway screening analysis for D/F and 
PAHs utilizing the Tier 3 screen predicted a potential lifetime cancer 
risk of 70-in-1 million or lower to the most exposed individual, with 
D/F emissions from group 1 furnaces handling other than clean charge 
driving the risk. Cancer risks due to PAH emissions for the maximum 
exposed individual were less than 1-in-1 million.
    The chronic non-cancer HQ was predicted to be below 1 for cadmium 
compounds and 1 for mercury compounds. For lead, we did not estimate 
any exceedances of the Primary Lead National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS).
    Further details on the refined multipathway screening analysis can 
be found in Appendix 8 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category in Support of the 2015 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the 
docket.
    d. Environmental Risk Screening Results. We conducted an 
environmental risk screening assessment for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production source category for the following seven pollutants: PAHs, 
mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), cadmium, lead, D/F, 
HCl, and HF.
    Of the seven pollutants included in the environmental risk screen, 
major sources in this source category emit PAHs, mercuric chloride, 
cadmium, lead, D/F, HCl, and HF. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for 
PB-HAP, none of the individual modeled concentrations for any facility 
in the source category exceeded any of the ecological benchmarks 
(either the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) or no observed 
adverse effects level (NOAEL)) for PAHs, mercuric chloride, cadmium, 
and D/F. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the Secondary 
Lead NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around 
each facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data 
points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. 
In addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., 
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
    Of the seven pollutants included in the environmental risk screen, 
area sources in this source category are regulated only for D/F. In the 
Tier 1 screening analysis for D/F, none of the individual modeled 
concentrations for any facility in the source category exceeded any of 
the ecological

[[Page 56711]]

benchmarks (either the LOAEL or NOAEL) for D/F.
    e. Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results. Considering facility-wide 
emissions at the 52 major sources, the MIR was estimated to be 70-in-1 
million driven by arsenic and nickel emissions, and the chronic non-
cancer TOSHI value was calculated to be 1, driven by emissions of 
cadmium compounds. The above risks were driven by emissions from the 
potline roof vents at the co-located primary aluminum production 
operations. The Secondary Aluminum Production source category 
represents less than 1 percent of the inhalation risks from the 
facility-wide assessment based upon actual emissions. The risks due to 
primary aluminum production operations are being addressed in a 
separate RTR rulemaking for the Primary Aluminum Production source 
category that EPA plans to finalize later this year.
    f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? We 
conducted a proximity analysis during the development of the proposed 
rule, and that analysis is also being used in support of this final 
rule. We conclude that this rule will not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations because it does not affect the level of protection 
provided to human health or the environment. However, the final rule 
will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups by 
improving the compliance, monitoring and implementation of the NESHAP.
    The detailed results of the proximity analyses can be found in the 
EJ Screening Report for Secondary Aluminum Area Sources and the EJ 
Screening Report for Secondary Aluminum Major Sources, which are 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
2. How did the risk review change for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
source category?
    No new information was received that would alter the results of the 
revised risk review presented in support of the 2014 supplemental 
proposal, so no changes were made.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the revised risk 
assessment for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category. The 
following is a summary of some key comments and our responses to those 
comments. Other comments received and our responses to those comments 
can be found in the document titled, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Aluminum Production 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule (77 FR 8576, 
February 14, 2012) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 72874, December 8, 
2014), which is available in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter \5\ stated that the EPA should reconsider 
its finding of acceptable risk and instead find risks unacceptable for 
the following reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In summarizing the key comments, we have indicated when a 
comment was submitted on the 2014 supplemental proposal. Unless 
otherwise noted, the remaining comments were submitted on the 2012 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The multipathway risk from D/F emissions: i.e., a lifetime cancer 
risk of up to 70-in-1 million for the most-exposed individual to 
emissions via a fish (``fisher'') route of exposure, and an additional 
cancer risk of up to 30-in-1 million for the most-exposed individual to 
such emissions from a farm (``farmer'') route of exposure. These 
exposures add up to 100-in-1 million. The EPA has a policy of adding 
cancer risks to determine the most-exposed individual's maximum risk. 
The EPA estimates cancer risks ``as the sum of the risks for each of 
the carcinogenic HAP'' because ``[s]umming the risks of these 
individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an 
approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer 
review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment.'' 79 FR 72886 and 
n.7 (citing National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA)--Evaluating the 
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data--a Science Advisory 
Board (SAB) Advisory). The Agency has given no valid justification for 
not recognizing that the maximum cancer risk from multipathway exposure 
could be as high as 100-in-1 million, sufficient for the EPA to find 
risk unacceptable. Furthermore, the EPA has recognized that the 
inhalation-based cancer risk could be as high as 4 (based on allowable 
emissions), or 0.6 (based on so-called ``actual'' emissions). Adding 
this risk (whether 0.6 or 4) to 100-in-1 million would exceed the EPA's 
benchmark of 100-in-1 million. The EPA has provided no valid basis for 
not adding inhalation and multipathway cancer risks. The EPA should 
look at the whole picture of cancer risk, in view of its additive 
policy for cancer. Thus, together these data points show that the EPA 
should find total cancer risk from this source category to be 
unacceptable.
    Moreover, the EPA's multipathway risk does not evaluate all 
persistent and/or bioaccumulative pollutants, and, thus, its 
multipathway risk assessment is likely underestimating these risks. The 
EPA should evaluate all persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxics (PBTs) 
emitted by the secondary aluminum source category, including all HAP 
metals emitted (such as arsenic and nickel).
    In addition, if inhalation-based cancer risk is more than 3 times 
as high from allowable emissions (as from so-called ``actual'' 
emissions), then multipathway-based cancer risk, which the EPA has not 
evaluated based on allowable emissions, is also likely to be more than 
3 times as high, or at least higher than the numbers the EPA found. 
Thus, the fish-based risk could be as high as 210-in-1 million, and the 
farm-based risk could be as high as 90-in-1 million; together, the 
maximum multipathway cancer risk the EPA should be considering for the 
most-exposed individual is 300-in-1 million. The EPA has given no valid 
justification for not considering allowable emissions-based risk from 
multipathway exposure. Doing so would lead the Agency to find cancer 
risk from multipathway exposure to be well above 100-in-1 million.
    The commenter stated that the above analysis shows why, based on 
cancer risk alone, the EPA should find secondary aluminum plants' 
current risk is unacceptable and, thus, set standards to reduce these 
plants' D/F and other cancer-causing emissions.
    The commenter stated that the EPA also found other health risks, 
including chronic non-cancer and acute risks, which only add more 
evidence of the harm the most-exposed individual faces from this source 
category. The commenter stated that, for example, the acute HQ from HF 
is 0.7, and from HCl is 0.4, which, added together, to consider the 
maximum acute risk, would be 1.1, above the level at which the EPA 
recognizes harm can occur. The commenter stated that the EPA has not 
added these risks, nor given any valid justification for not doing so, 
even though if there is an acute spike in emissions, it is just as 
likely that the most-exposed person would breathe various pollutants 
that may spike together--i.e., HCl, HF, and other pollutants, not just 
each pollutant individually. The commenter stated that the EPA's acute 
HQ is likely too low.
    The commenter stated that it is also unclear whether the EPA has 
used the most current, most protective D/F reference doses and 
concentrations, including the 2012 D/F value of 7 x 10 -10 
milligram (mg)/kilogram (kg)-day, for chronic oral exposure; the EPA 
should confirm that it has used the best

[[Page 56712]]

available scientific information on reference values. The commenter 
stated that the EPA should follow the best available scientific 
approach to risk assessment, as shown in California's risk assessment 
guidance manual and supporting scientific documents.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's arguments for finding 
risks to be unacceptable and have combined risk to the extent that it 
is appropriate to do so. We explain below and in the Residual Risk 
Assessment document, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking, why we do not sum the risk results from the fisher and 
farmer scenarios in our multipathway analysis and why we do not combine 
the risk values from our inhalation assessment with those of the 
multipathway analysis. We also explain the scope of our multipathway 
analysis in terms of the pollutants, the source of their dose-response 
values, and the emission levels. In addition, we explain below why we 
do not use a TOSHI approach for acute analyses. (See also the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category 
in Support of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.)
    In the multipathway screening assessment, we did not sum the risk 
results of the fisher and farmer scenarios. The modeling approach used 
for this analysis constructs two different exposure scenarios, which 
serves as a conservative estimate of potential risks to the most-
exposed receptor in each scenario. Based on the information and 
assumptions in the assessment, it is highly unlikely that the most-
exposed farmer is the same person as the most-exposed fisher, 
therefore, it is not reasonable to add risk results from these two 
exposure scenarios. (See Appendix 5 and Section 2.5 of the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category 
in Support of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.)
    We disagree with the commenter's statement that we should combine 
the results of our inhalation and multipathway assessments for this 
source category. We determined that it would be inappropriate to do so 
based on the differences in the design and results of the two types of 
assessments, as well as the highly conservative nature of the 
multipathway assessment. First, the screening scenario is a 
hypothetical scenario, and, due to the theoretical construct of the 
screening model, exceedances of the thresholds are not directly 
translatable into, or additive with, estimates of risk or HQ for these 
facilities. The result of the multipathway screen is number 
representing an exceedance of a benchmark, which is a ratio, and the 
results of a cancer risk assessment is a mathematical probability 
(i.e., increased risk of cancer due to exposure to the HAP emissions 
from the source category). It is not mathematically appropriate or 
consistent to add them together. Second, the multipathway risk 
assessment was a screening-level assessment and not a full risk 
assessment. The screening assessment used highly conservative 
assumptions designed to ensure that facilities with results below the 
screening threshold values did not have the potential for multipathway 
impacts of concern. The results of the multipathway screen represent a 
high-end estimate of what the multipathway risk or hazard may be. For 
example, an exceedance of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to 
mean that we have high confidence that the hazard would be less than 2. 
Similarly, an exceedance of 30 for a carcinogen means that we have high 
confidence that the risk is lower than 30-in-1 million. Our confidence 
comes from the conservative, health-protective assumptions that are in 
the multipathway screens: We choose inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
screens; and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total multipathway exposure. We 
conclude that it is not appropriate to sum the risk results from the 
chronic inhalation assessment and the screening multipathway 
assessment. In addition, it is highly unlikely that the same receptor 
has the maximum results in both assessments. In other words, it is 
unlikely that the person with the highest chronic inhalation cancer 
risk is also the same person with the highest individual multipathway 
cancer risk because it is unlikely that the same receptor has the 
maximum exposure and risk in both assessments.
    We currently do not have screening values for some PB-HAP, but we 
disagree that the multipathway assessment is inadequate because it did 
not include ``all HAP metals emitted (such as arsenic and nickel).'' We 
developed the current PB-HAP list considering all available information 
on persistence and bioaccumulation (see http://www2.epa.gov/fera/air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library-volumes-1-3, specifically 
Volume 1, Appendix D). (The Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference 
Library presents the decision process by which the PB-HAP were selected 
and provides information on the fundamental principles of risk-based 
assessment for air toxics and how to apply those principles.) In 
developing the list, we considered HAP identified as PB-HAP by other 
EPA Program Offices (e.g., the Great Waters Program), as well as 
information from the PBT profiler (see http://www.pbtprofiler.net/). 
Considering this list was peer-reviewed by the SAB and found to be 
acceptable, we believe it to be reasonable for use in risk assessments 
for the RTR program. Based on these sources and the limited available 
information on the persistence and bioaccumulation of other HAP, we do 
not believe that the potential for multipathway risk from other HAP not 
on the list, such as other metal HAP including arsenic and nickel, 
rises to the level of the PB-HAP on the list. However, in the future, 
we may add more pollutants to the multipathway analysis if we determine 
it is appropriate to do so.
    Regarding the commenter's assertion that we did not base the 
multipathway risk assessment on allowable emissions, we believe it is 
reasonable for the multipathway risk assessment to be based on actual 
emissions for this source category, and not the allowable level of 
emissions that facilities are permitted to emit. The uncertainties 
associated with the multipathway screen along with uncertainties in the 
allowable emissions estimates, which are highly variable for this 
source category, would make a multipathway risk assessment based on 
allowable emissions highly uncertain. Such an assessment would be too 
uncertain to support a regulatory decision. Many of the best-performing 
(based on actual emissions) sources have allowable emissions that are 
orders of magnitude greater than their actual emissions, and those 
facilities could not reasonably be expected to operate in such a manner 
that would result in emissions that even approach our estimates of 
allowable emissions.
    The commenter also argues for summing acute hazard quotients from 
different HAP to assess acute non-cancer risk. We do not sum results of 
the acute noncancer inhalation assessment to create a combined acute 
risk number that would represent the total acute risk for all 
pollutants that act in a similar way on the same organ system or 
systems (analogous to the chronic TOSHI) because the worst-case acute 
screen is already a conservative scenario. The acute screening scenario 
assumes worst-case meteorology, peak emissions for all emission points 
occurring concurrently and an individual being located at the site of

[[Page 56713]]

maximum concentration for an hour. Thus, as noted in the risk 
assessment report available in the docket, ``because of the 
conservative nature of the acute inhalation screening and the variable 
nature of emissions and potential exposures, acute impacts were 
screened on an individual pollutant basis, not using the TOSHI 
approach.''
    The dose-response values used in the risk assessment, including 
those for D/F, are based on the current peer reviewed Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS) values, as well as other similarly peer-
reviewed values. Our approach, which uses conservative tools and 
assumptions, ensures that our decisions are appropriately health 
protective and environmentally protective. The approach for selecting 
appropriate health benchmark values, in general, places greater weight 
on the EPA derived health benchmarks than those from other agencies 
(see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf). 
This approach has been endorsed by the SAB. The SAB further recommended 
that the EPA scrutinize values that emerge as drivers of risk 
assessment results and the Agency has incorporated this recommendation 
into the risk assessment process. This may result in the EPA 
determining that it is more appropriate to use a peer-reviewed dose-
response value from another agency even if an IRIS value exists.
    We generally draw no bright lines of acceptability regarding cancer 
or noncancer risks from source category HAP emissions. It is always 
important to consider the specific uncertainties of the emissions and 
health effects information regarding the source category in question 
when deciding exactly what level of cancer and noncancer risk should be 
considered acceptable. In addition, the source category-specific 
decision of what constitutes an acceptable level of risk should be a 
holistic one; that is, it should simultaneously consider all potential 
health impacts--chronic and acute, cancer and noncancer, and 
multipathway--along with their uncertainties, when determining the 
acceptable level of source category risk. The Benzene NESHAP decision 
framework of 1989 acknowledged this; such flexibility is imperative, 
because new information relevant to the question of risk acceptability 
is being developed all the time, and the accuracy and uncertainty of 
each piece of information must be considered in a weight-of-evidence 
approach for each decision. This relevant body of information is 
growing fast (and will continue to do so), necessitating a flexible 
weight-of-evidence approach that acknowledges both complexity and 
uncertainty in the simplest and most transparent way possible. While 
this challenge is formidable, it is nonetheless the goal of the EPA's 
RTR decision-making, and it is the goal of the risk assessment to 
provide the information to support the decision-making process.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA consider potential 
or allowable emissions, rather than actual emissions, as much as 
possible in evaluating residual risk. The commenter stated that because 
facility emissions could increase over time for a variety of reasons, 
and with them the associated impacts, the use of potential or allowable 
emissions is more appropriate; an analysis based on actual emissions 
from a single point in time could underestimate the risk. The commenter 
stated that the major source HAP thresholds are based on maximum 
potential-to-emit, as opposed to actual emissions, and air agencies 
issue permits based on potential emissions. The commenter stated that 
limiting the scope of a risk evaluation to actual emissions would be 
inconsistent with the applicability section of 40 CFR part 63 rules. 
The commenter stated that they were pleased that the EPA used allowable 
emissions in parts of the rulemaking, but were concerned that the EPA 
continues to use actual emissions in other parts of its assessment. The 
commenter encouraged the agency to use allowable emissions in the 
future, including in assessing acute health risks.
    One commenter agreed that the EPA appropriately concluded that 
secondary aluminum production does not pose risks warranting standard 
revision under section 112(f) of the CAA. The commenter noted that 
under the proposal, the EPA would find that the risks from the emission 
of HAP from sources in the Secondary Aluminum Production source 
category are acceptable and that the current MACT standards provide an 
AMOS to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental 
effect. The commenter stated that to determine these findings, the EPA 
utilized both MACT-allowable and actual emissions data for its risk 
analysis. The commenter supported the findings of acceptable risk and 
an AMOS, but noted that the use of MACT-allowable emissions in the risk 
assessment process is not required for such a finding.
    The commenter indicated that the use of actual emissions in risk 
assessments is more accurate than MACT-allowable emissions and is 
supported by the language of CAA section 112(f). The EPA is required to 
promulgate emission standards under CAA section 112(f) if ``excess 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a 
source'' are 1 in 1 million or greater. The commenter states that the 
statute does not use words such as ``maximum allowable,'' or 
``potential.'' Rather, the statute limits the risk review to consider 
the risks to the individual most exposed to the emissions from a 
particular source. The commenter concluded that it is clear from the 
wording of the statute that Congress intended the EPA to estimate risk 
based on the actual exposure. The commenter also stated that MACT-
allowable emissions represent a hypothetical, worst-case, emissions 
level to which an individual is unlikely to ever be exposed, especially 
given the already conservative assumptions inherent in the risk models. 
The commenter claimed that basing emission standards on worst-case 
scenarios can lead to imposition of costly and unnecessary controls 
which do little to reduce actual risk. The commenter claimed that, 
given that the EPA has actual emissions data from secondary aluminum 
production facilities, it should base its risk assessments on this best 
available data.
    In contrast, another commenter stated that they support the 
findings of acceptable risk, AMOS; and they also support the EPA's 
revisions to the allowable emissions calculation method that uses the 
actual amount of charge; however, the use of MACT-allowable emissions 
in the risk assessment process is not required for such a finding. The 
commenter stated that due to process variability, sources cannot emit 
HAP at MACT-allowable levels at all times and remain in compliance and 
it is likely that sources may reduce their emissions due to state or 
local rules, or for reasons other than compliance. The commenter stated 
that basing emission standards on worst-case scenarios can lead to 
imposition of costly and unnecessary controls, which do little to 
reduce actual risk. The commenter stated that the EPA points to two 
previous actions in which the EPA noted that the use of allowable 
emissions was reasonable; however, in both of these actions, the EPA 
used actual emissions because they were the most accurate data 
available. Because the EPA has actual emissions data from secondary 
aluminum production facilities, the commenter asserted that it should 
base its risk assessments on these data. The commenter further stated 
that, to the extent that the EPA continues to calculate allowable 
emissions, they support the EPA's use of

[[Page 56714]]

actual charge rates, which reflect real production rates and should 
result in more accurate allowable emissions totals than maximum 
production capacity.
    Response: Consistent with previous risk assessments, the EPA 
considers both allowable and actual emissions in assessing chronic 
exposure and risk under CAA section 112(f)(2). See, e.g., National 
Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998-19999, April 
15, 2005); proposed and final National Emission Standards for Organic 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, 
December 21, 2006). This approach is both reasonable and consistent 
with the flexibility inherent in the Benzene NESHAP framework for 
assessing acceptable risk and AMOS. As a general matter, modeling 
allowable emission levels is inherently reasonable since this reflects 
the maximum level sources could emit and still comply with national 
emission standards. But it is also reasonable to consider actual 
emissions, where such data are available, in the acceptable risk and 
AMOS analyses. See National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries, 
70 FR 19992, 19998 (April 15, 2005). The risk assessment for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production source category was conducted using 
actual and allowable emissions, and all of the results were considered 
in determining risk acceptability and AMOS. We agree with the commenter 
that it is appropriate to estimate allowable emissions using production 
rates that reflect current operations rather than using maximum 
production capacity. See Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary 
Aluminum Production Source Category in Support of the 2015 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule.
    One commenter claims that limiting our review to actual emissions 
would be inconsistent with the applicability section of 40 CFR part 63 
rules. As explained above and in the 2014 supplemental proposal, 
however, we did not limit our review to actual emissions, but rather 
considered actual emissions and allowable emissions, as appropriate, in 
particular portions of the risk assessment. The commenter also urges 
the Agency to rely on allowable emissions for the purpose of our acute 
screening assessment. We did not rely on allowable emissions for the 
acute screening assessment due to the conservative assumptions used to 
gauge worst-case potential acute health effects. The conservative 
assumptions built into the acute health risk screening analysis 
include: (1) Use of peak 1-hour emissions that are on average 10 times 
the annual average 1-hour emission rates; (2) that all emission points 
experience peak emissions concurrently; (3) worst-case meteorology 
(from 1 year of local meteorology); and (4) that a person is located 
downwind at the point of maximum impact during this same 1hour period. 
Thus, performing an acute screen based on allowable emissions would be 
overly conservative and, at best, of questionable utility to decision 
makers.
    We also note that our use of allowable emission levels in the risk 
assessments in this rulemaking did not result in revising the 
previously established standards due to risk concerns. Therefore, our 
consideration of allowable emissions in the risk assessments did not 
result in regulatory decisions that affect any facilities.
    Comment: One commenter on the supplemental proposal stated that at 
least nine secondary aluminum facilities have co-located primary 
aluminum operations, and for both source categories the EPA found that 
the facility-wide MIR is 70-in-1 million, driven by arsenic, nickel, 
and hexavalent chromium, and that the TOSHI (chronic non-cancer risk) 
is 1, driven by cadmium. The commenter stated that both numbers appear 
to consider only inhalation risk and must be viewed in context, as 
scientists have directed the EPA to do. The commenter stated that, if 
considered in combination with the high secondary aluminum multipathway 
risk, and with the high inhalation and multipathway risks for primary 
aluminum, the facility-wide cancer risk provides additional evidence 
that risks from both source categories are unacceptable, because the 
most-exposed person's full amount of risk is the combined amount from 
the co-located primary and secondary aluminum, not just each source 
category separately. The commenter stated that it would be unlawful and 
arbitrary to consider each type of risk separately, when people near 
both sources are exposed to both kinds of risk at the same time, and, 
thus, face a higher overall amount of risk.
    The commenter stated that the EPA has offered and can offer no 
valid justification for not finding risk from both source categories 
(including primary aluminum prebake, and secondary aluminum) to be 
unacceptable based on the co-located and combined risks. The commenter 
stated that the EPA may not lawfully ignore the full picture of risk 
that its combined rulemakings show is present for people exposed 
simultaneously to both source categories at the same facility.
    The commenter further stated that, because the EPA only assessed 
facility-wide risks based on so-called ``actual'' emissions, the 
facility-wide risk number could be at least 1.5 to 3 times higher. The 
commenter bases this assertion on the EPA's recognition that allowable 
emissions from primary aluminum are about 1.5 to 1.9 times higher than 
actual emissions and the fact that allowable emissions from secondary 
aluminum are at least 3 times higher than actual emissions.
    The commenter stated that it is important that EPA is evaluating 
facility-wide risk from sources in multiple categories that are co-
located and that EPA needs to consider the results of such facility-
wide analyses when determining if stronger standards should be 
established for these sources. The commenter stated that this 
rulemaking is an important opportunity for the EPA to recognize the 
need to act based on data showing significant combined and cumulative 
risks and impacts at the facility-wide level. The commenter stated that 
the EPA is also required to do so to meet its CAA section 7412(f)(2) 
duties.
    The commenter stated that the EPA also should be evaluating the 
cumulative risks from all nearby toxics sources in multiple source 
categories, not looking only at multiple sources in the same category, 
and different sources at the same facility. The commenter stated that 
the EPA has said it recognizes the need to put risk in context, but 
still has not even attempted to evaluate the bigger picture of health 
risks by looking at all nearby sources (from various source categories, 
including those collocated and those not collocated). According to the 
commenter, in doing so would likely lead to recognizing that the 
individual most-exposed to each of these source categories is also 
experiencing significant risks from other sources, providing even more 
evidence as to why the EPA should reduce risks from the primary and 
secondary aluminum source categories.
    Response: With regard to facility-wide assessments, we conducted 
such assessments for all 52 major sources in the source category, 
including the nine secondary aluminum production facilities co-located 
with primary aluminum reduction plants. The methods and results of the 
facility-wide risk assessment, in addition to the inhalation and 
multipathway analyses for facilities in the source category, are 
discussed above and in the risk

[[Page 56715]]

assessment document for the 2014 supplemental proposal, as well as in 
the risk assessment document for the 2015 final rule. Specifically, we 
modeled whole-facility inhalation risks for both chronic cancer and 
non-cancer impacts to understand the risk contribution of the sources 
within the secondary aluminum source category to facility-wide risks. 
The individual cancer risks for the source category were aggregated for 
all carcinogens. In assessing noncancer hazard from chronic exposures 
for pollutants that have similar modes of action or (where this 
information is absent) that affect the same target organ, we aggregated 
the HQ. This process creates, for each target organ, a TOSHI, defined 
as the sum of hazard quotients for individual HAP that affect the same 
organ or organ system. All TOSHI calculations presented here were based 
exclusively on effects occurring at the ``critical dose'' (i.e., the 
lowest dose that produces adverse health effects). Whole facility risks 
were estimated based on emissions data obtained from facilities.
    The commenter stated that the EPA must find the risks unacceptable 
based on the whole-facility risks from co-located primary and secondary 
aluminum operations. The EPA does not typically include whole-facility 
assessments in the CAA section 112(f) acceptability determination for a 
source category. Reasons for this include the fact that emissions and 
source characterization data are usually not of the same vintage and 
quality for all source categories that are on the same site, and thus 
the results of the whole-facility assessment are generally not 
appropriate to include in the regulatory decisions regarding 
acceptability. However, in this rare case, we are developing the risk 
assessments for primary and secondary aluminum production at the same 
time. The data are generally of the same vintage and we have actual 
emissions data and source characterization data for both source 
categories. In response to the comment, we refer to the facility-wide 
risk assessment, which included the nine facilities with co-located 
primary and secondary aluminum operations. As discussed above and shown 
in Table 2, for the facility with the highest risk from inhalation, the 
facility-wide MIR for cancer from actual emissions is 70-in-1 million. 
The facility-wide non-cancer hazard is 1. The highest facility-wide 
exceedance of the multipathway screen is 70. There was no facility-wide 
exceedance of a noncancer threshold in the multipathway screen. 
Considering these facility-wide results as part of the acceptability 
determination does not change our determination that the risks are 
acceptable for the secondary aluminum source category. We note that 
while the incorporation of additional background concentrations from 
the environment in our risk assessments (including those from mobile 
sources and other industrial and area sources) could be technically 
challenging, they are neither mandated nor barred from our analysis. In 
developing the decision framework in the Benzene NESHAP used for making 
residual risk decisions, the EPA rejected approaches that would have 
mandated consideration of background levels of pollution in assessing 
the acceptability of risk, concluding that comparison of acceptable 
risk should not be associated with levels in polluted urban air (54 FR 
38044, 38061, September 14, 1989). Background levels (including natural 
background) are not barred from the EPA's AMOS analysis, and the EPA 
may consider them, as appropriate and as available, along with other 
factors, such as cost and technical feasibility, in the second step of 
its CAA section 112(f) analysis. As discussed in the 2014 supplemental 
proposal, the risk assessment for this source category did not include 
background contributions (that may reflect emissions that are from 
outside the source category and from other than co-located sources) 
because the available data are of insufficient quality upon which to 
base a meaningful analysis.
    The commenter is correct that we based our facility-wide risk 
assessment on actual emission rather than on estimated allowable 
emissions. Because the facility-wide allowable emissions estimates have 
not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, quality assurance, 
and technical evaluation as the actual emissions estimates from the 
source category, a facility-wide risk assessment based on allowable 
emissions estimates would be too uncertain to support a regulatory 
decision.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As discussed above and in the 2014 supplemental proposal, after 
considering health risk information and other factors, including 
uncertainties, we determined that the risks from the Secondary Aluminum 
Production source category are acceptable and the current standards 
provide an AMOS to protect public health. In summary, our revised risk 
assessment indicates cancer risks below the presumptive limit of 
acceptability and non-cancer results indicating minimal likelihood of 
adverse health effects, and we identified no control technologies or 
other measures that would be cost effective in further reducing risks 
(or potential risks). In particular, we did not identify any cost-
effective approaches to further reduce D/F emissions and multipathway 
risk beyond what is already being achieved by the current NESHAP.

B. Technology Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review 
to identify and evaluate developments in practices, processes and 
control technologies for the Secondary Aluminum Production source 
category, as described in the 2012 proposal. Details of the technology 
review and its findings are available in the memoranda, Draft 
Technology Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category 
(Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0144) and Draft Technical Support 
Document for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category (Docket 
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0152). The typical controls used to minimize 
emissions at secondary aluminum facilities include fabric filters for 
control of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners for control 
of THC and D/F from thermal chip dryers; afterburners plus lime-
injected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl, THC and D/F from scrap 
dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of 
D/F from sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-
only furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filters 
for control of PM and HCl from in-line fluxers; and lime-injected 
fabric filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. In 
our review of technology, we determined that there have been some 
developments in practices, processes or control technologies, but we 
did not identify any of the developments as cost-effective. We stated 
in the 2012 proposal that the technology review did not warrant any 
amendments to Subpart RRR.
    Following the 2012 proposal, no public comments were received to 
alter the conclusions of our technology review for the Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category. In the 2014 supplemental proposal, 
we proposed that the technology review findings from the 2012 proposal 
were still valid

[[Page 56716]]

and that the EPA was not aware of any changes in technology development 
since the 2012 proposal. See Supplemental Proposal Technology Review 
for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category and Supplemental 
Proposal Technical Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production Source Category, both available in the docket for this 
rulemaking. Based on our findings, no rule amendments based on the 
technology review were proposed.
2. How did the technology review change for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production source category?
    Following the 2014 supplemental proposal, we received no comments 
and identified no information to alter our findings and conclusions in 
the technology review for the Secondary Aluminum Production source 
category. We did, however, update certain information on capture 
efficiency and costs. Updated information can be found in Technical 
Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category 
Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    Comment: In a comment on the supplemental proposal, commenter 0301 
stated that this source category is listed for regulation under 42 
U.S.C. 7412(c)(6) as a result of its dioxin/furan emissions and that 
EPA has proposed to rely on the Secondary Aluminum standards to meet 
its section 7412(c)(6) responsibility, in part, for dioxin {Commenter's 
footnote: EPA, Completion of Requirement to Promulgate Emissions 
Standards, 79 FR 74,656, 74,664 tbl.1 (Dec. 16, 2014){time} . The 
commenter stated that in this rulemaking, EPA has proposed not to 
update these emission standards to strengthen protection from dioxins/
furans, even though it recognizes that developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies have occurred that could reduce HAP 
emissions, such as activated carbon injection. The commenter stated 
that as explained in their 2012 comments on primary aluminum, when 
there are ``developments'' under section 7412(d)(6), EPA must 
promulgate revised standards. The commenter stated that revised 
emission standards--like any other section 7412(d) standards--must 
satisfy the floor and beyond-the-floor requirements of section 
7412(d)(2)-(3), which state that they apply explicitly to ``emissions 
standards promulgated under this subsection,'' i.e., under section 
7412(d). The commenter stated that EPA must set revised standards that 
are at least as stringent as the emission limitation achieved by the 
relevant best-performing sources under section 7412(d)(3), and must 
assure the maximum achievable degree of emission reduction at the 
beyond-the-floor stage, as required by section 7412(d)(2).
    Response: The original MACT standards for dioxins/furans for the 
secondary aluminum industry helped to satisfy the EPA's obligations 
under 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(6), and the subsequent technology reviews for 
the source category has no bearing on our 112(c)(6) finding.
    The commenter is incorrect in stating that there have been 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
would warrant revisions to the standards. As we stated in the preamble 
to the supplemental proposal (79 FR at 72901), there have been no 
developments in technology in this industry that warrant any changes to 
subpart RRR. The commenter's identification of activated carbon as a 
new control technology for this industry is also not correct as it has 
been available to the industry since before the 2000 final rule. 
Furthermore, as part of the technology review contained in the 2014 
supplemental proposal (see 79 FR at 72901), we performed an analysis to 
evaluate lowering the D/F emissions limit from 15 to 10 [micro]g TEQ/Mg 
for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge at all 
facilities. The analysis performed for the supplemental proposal 
assumed that furnaces above 10 [micro]g TEQ/mg added activated carbon 
injection to achieve exactly the 10 ug TEQ/Mg limit. That analysis has 
been updated and assumes that all furnaces with emissions above 10 
[micro]g TEQ/Mg that add activated carbon injection achieve an 85-
percent reduction in D/F emissions. The updated analysis is available 
in Technical Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
Source Category Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    We disagree with the comments suggesting that the EPA must 
recalculate MACT floors and conduct beyond-the floor analyses under CAA 
section 112(d)(2)-(3) as part of the section 112(d)(6) review. As 
explained in a prior RTR rulemaking, the EPA does not read 112(d)(6) as 
requiring a reanalysis or recalculation of MACT floors. See National 
Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998-19999, April 
15, 2005). We read section 112(d)(6) as providing the EPA with 
substantial latitude in weighing a variety of factors and arriving at 
an appropriate balance in considering revisions to standards 
promulgated under section 112(d)(2) & (3). Nothing in section 112(d)(6) 
expressly or implicitly requires that EPA recalculate the MACT floor as 
part of the section 112(d)(6) review. This position has been upheld by 
the court. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We 
disagree with the commenters that the court's decision hinged on the 
fact that for the rulemaking at issue we had not identified any 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies under CAA 
section 112(d)(6). Rather, the court first states ``[w]e do not think 
the words `review and revise as necessary' can be construed reasonably 
as imposing'' an obligation to completely recalculate maximum 
achievable control technology. Id.
    In another comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated that they concur with the Agency's determination that there have 
been no new developments in practices, processes or control 
technologies that are applicable to the secondary aluminum production 
source category that would warrant revisions to the NESHAP.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    As discussed above and in the 2012 and 2014 proposals, we 
determined that there have been some developments in practices, 
processes or control technologies, but we concluded that the technology 
developments did not warrant any changes to Subpart RRR.

C. Testing of Group 1 Furnaces That Do Not Have Add-On Pollution 
Control Devices

1. What did we propose related to testing of uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces?
    In the 2012 proposal, to clarify how furnaces not equipped with an 
add-on air pollution control device and associated capture and 
collection system are to be tested for compliance, we proposed 
compliance alternatives addressing capture and collection of emissions 
for uncontrolled furnaces during performance testing. Specifically, we 
proposed that an owner or operator with an uncontrolled furnace could 
either temporarily install hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines for the 
duration of the testing or, for an existing uncontrolled furnace, 
assume 67-percent capture efficiency for furnace exhaust (i.e., 
multiply measured

[[Page 56717]]

emissions by 1.5 to account for the uncollected emissions) without 
installing temporary hooding. As proposed, if the source uses the 67-
percent capture efficiency assumption but fails to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission standard, the source would have to retest 
using ACGIH hooding or may petition the appropriate authority 
(permitting authority for major sources or the Administrator for area 
sources) that such hoods are impractical for the source and propose 
alternative testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions. 
We proposed that the retesting must occur within 90 days.
    Based on comments received on the 2012 proposal and our 
consideration of specific testing scenarios and types of uncontrolled 
furnaces, we proposed revised requirements for the testing of 
uncontrolled furnaces in the 2014 supplemental proposal. We proposed 
that if a source uses the 67-percent capture efficiency assumption but 
fails to demonstrate compliance, then they must retest using ACGIH 
hooding within 180 days, or the source may petition the appropriate 
authority within 180 days that such hoods are impractical and propose 
alternative testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions. 
In the supplemental proposal, we also proposed conditions that would be 
considered impractical to install temporary ACGIH hooding and 
alternative procedures to minimize unmeasured emissions during testing.
    Based on comments received on the 2012 proposal, the 2014 
supplemental proposal also contained a provision to exclude existing 
round top furnaces from the proposed requirement to install temporary 
ACGIH hooding or to use a 67-percent capture efficiency assumption, as 
well as the proposed option to submit a petition of impracticality. 
Instead, we proposed that round top furnaces must be operated to 
minimize unmeasured emissions during testing.
    In response to commenters' requests, we proposed example procedures 
to minimize unmeasured emissions during testing and amendments to 
clarify in what circumstances installation of temporary capture hoods 
for testing would be considered impractical.
2. What changed since proposal related to testing of uncontrolled group 
1 furnaces?
    Based on our consideration of comments and additional information 
received following the 2014 supplemental proposal, the following 
changes have been made in the final rule:
     If a facility owner or operator knows in advance that 
installing ACGIH hoods for testing is not practical, the facility owner 
or operator may petition the appropriate authority at least 180 days in 
advance for approval of plans to use alternative testing procedures 
that will minimize unmeasured emissions during testing.
     Reconstructed round top furnaces are exempt from the 
testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(i) and (ii), and (iii).
     Additional methods of minimizing unmeasured emissions 
during testing of uncontrolled group 1 furnaces are added to 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(7) including the use of one or more fans positioned to 
direct air flow into an open furnace door, and the use of a smaller but 
representative charge added to the furnace at one time and conducting 
the test without additional charge.
     We have revised the capture efficiency assumption to 80 
percent.
3. What key comments did we receive related to testing of uncontrolled 
group 1 furnaces?
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should not impose a 
requirement for group 1 furnaces without add-on air pollution control 
devices (APCD) to construct hoods for performance tests or be subject 
to a 33-percent reduction in allowed emissions. The commenter asserted 
that the EPA improperly characterizes this burdensome proposed 
requirement as a revision to the NESHAP to reportedly ``correct and 
clarify provisions in the rule.''
    One commenter stated that the EPA has provided no information to 
demonstrate that the proposed requirement for uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces is warranted or is consistent with requirements for developing 
NESHAP. The commenter is concerned that the only support for the 
proposed hooding requirement that the EPA has provided in the docket is 
a summary of two stack tests conducted at a single facility. The 
commenter states that these tests show a large degree of variability 
between the two tests and for different chemical parameters within each 
test. The commenter argued that the EPA has provided no information to 
demonstrate that these tests are indicative of operations throughout 
the Secondary Aluminum Production source category.
    According to the commenter, the information that the EPA provided 
in the Technical Support Document indicates that the EPA may not have 
analyzed an appropriate operation to establish regulatory requirements. 
The commenter observed that if, as indicated in the Technical Support 
Document, the canopy hood was sampled for over 3 hours because there 
were emissions to be captured by it, the charge door must have been 
open for more than 3 hours during the melt cycle. The commenter stated 
that this scenario does not represent a conventional melting operation.
    The commenter presented further concerns that the Technical Support 
Document states that the test cycle time in the September 5, 2007, test 
report ``could be a mistake'' and that the testing reported on 
September 5, 2007, may be ``flawed.'' The commenter noted a wide 
variation of capture efficiencies for D/F and questioned the EPA's 
proposal to apply 67-percent capture efficiency across all parameters 
and all facilities. The commenter claimed that it is unreasonable to 
apply capture efficiency based on PM or HCl to area sources when area 
sources are regulated only for D/F.
    The commenter stated that the EPA placed the test reports discussed 
in the RTI Technical Support Document in the docket a month after the 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register, which reduced the 
time reviewers had for comment. The commenter had the following 
concerns about the test reports:
     There is not sufficient information to understand how the 
furnaces are configured or operated, including how the hood was 
constructed or placed, and when or for how long the door(s) were left 
open;
     The hood draft volumes were large compared to furnace 
stack gas flow volumes, and the capture measured during the tests may 
not be a good measure of fugitive emissions that would occur in the 
absence of an induced draft hood;
     The stack temperatures also appear to be low, possibly due 
to dilution air being drawn into the stack duct prior to the sampling 
point, which could mean that actual combustion gas flowing from the 
furnace are much lower than reported at the stack, and the ratio of 
hood flow volume is much higher than that calculated in the Technical 
Support Document;
     No production numbers are provided so it is not possible 
to determine if the furnaces were operating in compliance with the 
NESHAP requirements; and
     The EPA has provided no indication that they attempted to 
determine the representativeness of the tests.

[[Page 56718]]

    One commenter stated that fugitive emissions are minor from a well 
operated group 1 furnace without add-on controls, as door openings and 
top removals are kept at a minimum to conserve energy and burners are 
generally kept at reduced firing rates when furnaces are opened. The 
commenter stated that the 67-percent capture assumption that the EPA 
drew does not seem reasonable based on the commenter's observations.
    The commenter emphasized that emissions from round top furnaces are 
negligible during periods when the top is off and burners are on low 
fire. The commenter stated that these furnaces would be placed at a 
competitive disadvantage by reducing the allowable emission by 33 
percent. Further, the commenter noted that new round top furnaces are 
not allowed the 33-percent emission limit reduction in the proposed 
rule, so operators installing new round top furnaces would be forced to 
petition on a case-by-case basis to demonstrate impracticability. The 
commenter recommended that if the EPA finalizes this provision, round 
top furnaces should be categorically exempt from any hooding 
requirements because it is impractical to install hoods and because the 
EPA should not burden state and local agencies with the need to make 
case-by-case determinations when they can be categorically exempt.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that the EPA offers no explanation for limiting the exemption to 
install ACGIH-compliant hoods for testing to existing round top 
furnaces only. The commenter stated that they own and operate several 
existing and new source round top furnaces for which the physical 
configuration and operation is very similar. The commenter stated that 
they will construct new or reconstruct existing round top furnaces in 
the future and that it would be impracticable to construct hoods of any 
type on any of these furnaces regardless of whether they are existing, 
new, or reconstructed sources. The commenter recommended that the EPA 
include new and reconstructed furnaces in its hooding exemption.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that, for a variety of design, technical, operational, and safety 
reasons, it is impractical to install temporary hooding on round top 
furnaces for performance testing and agreed with our proposed exemption 
from the performance test hooding requirements for existing round top 
furnaces. The commenter disagreed, however, with our not proposing an 
exemption for ``new or reconstructed'' sources (including round top 
furnaces), asserting that the same fundamental design factors that 
prohibit installation of temporary hooding on existing round top 
furnaces also prevent its installation on new round top furnaces. The 
commenter requested that the word ``existing'' be removed from the 
round top furnace exemption language proposed in 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4)(iii) and that the words ``or reconstructed non-round 
top'' be added to (5) such that it reads
    ``(5) When testing a new or reconstructed, non-round top 
uncontrolled furnace the owner or operator must . . .''
    One commenter maintained that allowing facilities to petition 
permitting authorities that such hoods are impractical is not an 
acceptable alternative to the proposed rule and suggested that the EPA 
allow site-specific procedures in OM&M plans for group 1 uncontrolled 
furnaces to minimize fugitive emissions.
    One commenter asserted that the proposed ACGIH hooding requirement 
ignores the consideration that the EPA made for fugitive emissions in 
the original MACT floor determination and implements requirements for 
ACGIH hooding that go beyond the floor. The commenter stated that, in 
the 2000 Secondary [Aluminum] MACT rule, performance testing of 
controlled sources was conducted to define the MACT floor. Although 
some fugitive emissions were visible near capture hoods, the EPA did 
not specify a numerical capture efficiency requirement, visible 
emissions limit, or specific limits or criteria for capture systems. 
Instead, the EPA included a provision to address hooding systems to 
capture and collect emissions by including guidelines published in 
Chapters 3 and 5 of ACGIH Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice, which is incorporated into the rule by reference. 
The commenter stated that owners/operators of sources with existing 
add-on control systems have been challenged with regard to the capture/
collection system design guidelines in the ACGIH manual, and, according 
to the commenter, there have been instances when there has been a 
misuse of the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual. The commenter 
asserted that the EPA and some permitting agencies are interpreting the 
manual and incorporating portions of various charts, tables and text as 
regulatory requirements. The commenter stated that the authors of the 
ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual did not intend, and specifically 
state in the Forward of the manual that ``The manual is not intended, 
to be used as law, but rather as a guide.''
    One commenter contended that in the original MACT proposal and 
rulemaking, the EPA provided no supporting data to demonstrate that the 
MACT floor technology control systems tested for each Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category is actually capable of meeting the 
capture/collection system design requirements in the ACGIH manual. The 
commenter asserted that the EPA and some permit authorities during 
implementation of the rule, without supporting documentation, imposed 
specific capture/collection system design requirements on all existing 
add-on control systems that effectively exceed the MACT floor 
determinations. The commenter further asserted that the EPA did not 
follow the regulatory procedures for going ``above the floor'' during 
the rulemaking process in imposing more stringent hooding requirements.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that, if the EPA retains the requirement that uncontrolled furnaces 
conduct performance testing using ACGIH-compliant hooding, the current 
emission limits for group 1 uncontrolled furnaces should be 
reevaluated. The commenter stated that the supplemental proposal sets 
new requirements for uncontrolled furnaces that go beyond the existing 
MACT floor and was based upon a 33-percent reduction developed from 
limited data. The commenter requested that the EPA collect more 
emissions data from uncontrolled furnaces tested with ACGIH capture 
hoods and make new MACT floor determinations and set new numerical 
emission limits that properly account for the higher total emissions 
caused by the collection of fugitive emissions collected by the ACGIH-
compliant hoods.
    Several commenters maintained that the EPA is basing the proposed 
ACGIH hooding requirement on a limited, unrepresentative, and flawed 
dataset.
    One commenter expressed concern that the dataset on which the EPA 
based their proposed action was made available only after publication 
of the proposal. The commenter stated that due to the limited 
information available to the industry, no additional testing has been 
performed to assess the impact of the proposed action, or its economic 
or engineering feasibility.
    Two commenters observed that the EPA has erroneously based the 67-
percent hooding assumption on very limited test data from two furnaces 
operating with forced-draft fans, a scenario that is atypical of 
uncontrolled

[[Page 56719]]

furnaces, which are normally operated under natural draft. The 
commenter believes that the ``hooding efficiency'' measured during 
these tests is not representative because of the extremely high design 
flow rate of the capture hoods. The commenters maintained that exhaust 
flow at the hood was three times the stack exhaust flow rate, causing 
furnace emissions to be drawn out of the furnace door rather than 
allowing these emissions to exhaust through the stack.
    One commenter cited an RTI memorandum to Rochelle Boyd, 
Environmental Engineer at the EPA, regarding the testing period 
reported for September 5, 2007, as a basis for the claim that errors 
were made during data collection, and that the EPA may be basing their 
decision and approach to regulating fugitive emissions on one dataset. 
The commenter emphasized that there are many furnace configurations 
that are used in the industry, so the EPA's one limited dataset cannot 
be representative of the entire industry. The commenter provided a copy 
of a table provided to the EPA by the commenter on December 21, 2011, 
outlining the inherent difference between several major furnace types.
    One commenter stated that this proposal, in regard to installing 
hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines, is inconsistent with the 
requirement for existing sources that the MACT floor must equal the 
average emissions limitations currently achieved by the best-performing 
12 percent of sources in that source category if there are 30 or more 
existing sources or, if there are fewer than 30 existing sources, then 
the MACT floor must equal the average emissions limitation achieved by 
the best-performing five sources in the category.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that they are concerned that the hooding and capture efficiency 
provisions in the 2014 supplemental proposal are unnecessary and 
actually reflect ``beyond the floor'' provisions for the installation 
of specific capture/collection systems that are not justified by the 
MACT floor determination calculations and evaluations.
    One commenter stated that given the lack of evidence supporting 
these provisions, the commenter believes 40 CFR 63.1512 should be 
eliminated from the final rule.
    Several commenters stated that ACGIH-compliant hoods are impossible 
to install on many group 1 uncontrolled furnaces due to the engineering 
limitations and considerations of many furnace installations such as 
size, type and location of the furnace. One commenter provided three 
examples of existing furnace installations that are unable to meet the 
requirements for fugitive emissions testing.
    One commenter discussed round top furnace operations and how normal 
operations would not allow hooding for fugitive emissions.
    One commenter stated that installation of temporary hooding on 
round top charge melters of the type the commenter has at its plant 
located in Lewisport, Kentucky, is not possible, and due to installed 
furnace design it is not possible to install temporary hoods on some 
reverberatory furnaces. The commenter included as attachments 
background information about the Lewisport testing.
    One commenter stated that for group 1 uncontrolled furnaces, the 
proposed 33-percent emission reduction is a mandatory reduction for 
some operations, and also eliminates future operating flexibility for 
operations that are currently operating near the proposed 67-percent 
emission level. According to the commenter, the margin between 
operating levels and actual limits represents a margin of safety for 
furnaces that experience normal variations to be in continuous 
compliance.
    The commenter maintained that the EPA proposed the 33-percent 
reduction in emissions without proof or justification that there are in 
fact fugitive emissions being released at or near these levels or for 
durations seen in the limited data the EPA provides. The commenter 
recommended that the EPA promulgate a rule that maintains a level 
playing field for the companies affected by the rule.
    Two commenters recommended that the EPA allow the option to apply 
the assumed 67-percent capture efficiency for new furnaces to avoid the 
added cost of installing temporary hooding where a furnace can be 
operated in a manner that meets the 67-percent emission limit by 
changing the proposed requirement in 40 CFR 63.1512. The commenters 
argued that the proposed approach essentially forces the installation 
of a costly hood for new furnaces even when such hoods are not needed 
due to good pollution prevention practice and the resulting low HAP 
emission rates. The commenters opposed the HAP emission rate adjustment 
for new uncontrolled furnaces in instances where ACGIH hooding 
specifications are not possible, as the EPA proposed in 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4)(ii), and asked that it be removed.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that in the original 40 CFR 63.1500, Applicability, and 40 CFR 63.1501, 
Dates, there are references to equipment that is ``new'' and equipment 
that is ``existing'' depending on installation date. The commenter 
suggested that EPA revise 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4) to read as follows:
    ``When testing an existing or new uncontrolled furnace, . . .''
    One commenter stated that issues addressed in 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4)(ii), in terms of assuming a 67-percent capture efficiency 
for the furnace exhaust, were previously covered in the stack testing 
protocols that are part of the commenter's Consent Decree (included as 
an attachment). The commenter requested that the EPA provide 
clarification that those protocols are not impacted by this rule making 
and remain fully acceptable.
    Response: As discussed in the preambles and technical support 
documents to the 2012 proposal and 2014 supplementary proposal, the 
existing performance testing requirements in Subpart RRR that apply to 
group 1 furnaces without add-on APCD do not include specific 
requirements relating to capture and collection of emissions during 
performance tests conducted to ensure compliance with applicable 
emission standards. During performance testing of these sources, 
emissions may escape without being accounted for (i.e., captured, 
collected, and measured) in the emissions test. Thus, the performance 
tests done to ensure compliance may not provide an accurate measure of 
whether the furnace is, in fact, meeting the applicable emission 
standards.
    The ACGIH guidelines (as defined in 40 CFR 63.1503) provide 
specifications for the proper design and installation of capture and 
collection systems to minimize unmeasured emissions and ensure that 
process emissions are being properly captured and conveyed to an air 
pollution control device, where one is in place, and also ensures that 
emissions testing results are representative of total emissions. The 
Subpart RRR standard as promulgated in 2000 includes a requirement that 
all controlled emission units include capture and collection systems 
designed consistent with the ACGIH guidelines. As stated in our 
response to comments in the 2000 Subpart RRR rule, a capture and 
collection system meeting ACGIH criteria is necessary for occupational 
safety, and for assuring compliance with the emission standards. See 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on

[[Page 56720]]

Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, December 14, 1999, in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    The emission standards that apply to all group 1 furnaces were 
based on data from systems that effectively capture and contain 
emissions at the source (minimizing unmeasured emissions) and convey 
the emissions to the control device for destruction or removal. In 
addition, a capture and collection system meeting ACGIH guidelines with 
good hooding design will result in a lower volume of exhaust air to be 
treated, and, in many cases, a smaller, lower-cost control device. The 
EPA considered an ACGIH-compliant capture and collection system to be 
part of MACT floor technology for affected sources with add-on controls 
(see 64 FR 6960, February 11, 1999).
    The subpart RRR rule generally applied the same emission standards 
to uncontrolled group 1 furnaces as it did to controlled group 1 
furnaces and thereby allowed secondary aluminum facilities to continue 
to have uncontrolled group 1 furnaces so long as they met similar 
emission standards as controlled group 1 furnaces. The lack of clarity 
on the level of unmeasured emissions that may be emitted from an 
uncontrolled group 1 furnace during performance testing has led to 
confusion in rule implementation, as well as significant concerns about 
the accuracy and appropriateness of the compliance determination 
protocol.
    Because performance tests for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces may not 
accurately measure whether the furnace is in compliance with the 
applicable emission standards, the EPA concluded that a testing 
protocol for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces that allows a potentially 
significant portion of HAP emissions to be unmeasured and unaccounted 
for in determining compliance with emission standards is inadequate.
    A testing procedure for uncontrolled furnaces that permits an 
unknown degree of variance in the amount of emissions that may escape 
measurement during performance testing could call into question whether 
the rule is adequately ensures that the furnaces are meeting applicable 
emission standards. The commenters' suggest that a compliance 
demonstration that does not account for unmeasured emissions is a 
necessary result of the development of the Subpart RRR emission 
standards. The commenters are, in effect, questioning whether the 
existing standards for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces are consistent 
with the MACT floor analysis, which was primarily based on the 
performance of controlled furnaces. Moreover, if the level of 
unmeasured emissions during performance testing cannot be quantified 
for purposes of determining compliance with Subpart RRR emission 
standards, there could be an issue regarding the extent to which such 
emissions are subject to any MACT standard.
    We note that one commenter stated that if EPA finalizes the testing 
requirements for uncontrolled furnaces, the EPA should reevaluate group 
1 uncontrolled furnace emission limits. The commenter suggested that 
EPA collect emissions test data from uncontrolled furnaces using ACGIH 
hooding, make new MACT floor determinations, and set new numerical MACT 
emission limits. The EPA believes requiring additional furnace testing 
and conducting further MACT rulemaking is not necessary to address 
unmeasured emissions during performance testing of uncontrolled 
furnaces. The EPA believes that the actions taken in this rulemaking 
are sufficient to address the issue.
    Further, the EPA is not mandating ACGIH hooding during performance 
testing in all instances, but rather providing alternative compliance 
options for facilities to account for unmeasured emissions from 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces during performance testing. Specifically, 
for existing uncontrolled furnaces we are requiring either the 
installation of temporary ACGIH hooding or an assumption of a specified 
capture efficiency for furnace exhaust. Requirements for new 
uncontrolled furnaces are discussed below. Although we proposed using a 
67-percent capture efficiency in lieu of the installation of temporary 
ACGIH hooding, in light of comments, we have re-examined the testing 
data on which the proposed 67-percent capture efficiency assumption was 
based, and revised the assumed capture efficiency to 80 percent. This 
80-percent capture efficiency is based on the highest average capture 
of the three HAP tested. See Draft Technical Support Document for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category, Supplemental Proposal 
Technical Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source 
Category, and Technical Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production Source Category Final Rule, all available in this rulemaking 
docket. We believe this revised percent capture efficiency assumption 
of 80 percent provides the best estimate of the capture efficiency of 
uncontrolled furnaces for the several pollutants being measured, based 
on the limited data available. Under these provisions, if the source 
fails to demonstrate compliance using the 80-percent capture efficiency 
assumption, the source must retest using hooding that meets ACGIH 
guidelines or petition the appropriate authority that such hoods are 
impractical and propose testing procedures that will minimize 
unmeasured emissions. The retesting or petition must occur within 180 
days. The commenters have not demonstrated that these alternatives are 
inappropriate or inconsistent with the 2000 MACT floor.
    Applying the same emission limits to uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 
as controlled group 1 furnaces necessarily depends on emissions from 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces being adequately captured and collected 
or being reasonably accounted for when a performance test is conducted. 
The MACT floor analysis, and the emission standards established by that 
analysis, for all group 1 furnaces (including controlled and 
uncontrolled furnaces) incorporated well-designed and maintained 
capture and collection systems, such as those prescribed by ACGIH 
guidelines. The rule revisions being promulgated in this action address 
this need by allowing facilities to choose from the compliance options 
described above.
    In addition, CAA section 63.7(d)(5) of the General Provisions, 
which applies to this rule, requires that the owner or operator provide 
the facilities necessary for safe and adequate testing of a source. 
Adequate testing includes the responsibility to either provide a means 
of directing emissions to the sampling train, or to measure the capture 
efficiency of the equipment used to direct the emissions to the 
sampling train so that the overall emissions from the source can be 
determined. The rule changes described above assist in implementing 
this requirement for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces.
    In response to the commenter's concerns regarding the test results 
cited by the EPA, the EPA obtained additional information from 
personnel at the facility at which the tests were performed. This 
information, which is available in the docket, indicates:
     Although sampling was conducted for approximately 3 hours 
using the canopy hoods at the two furnaces, the charging doors were 
only open for approximately 15 minutes on one furnace, and 
approximately 30 minutes on the other furnace;
     The testing times at the furnace stacks for both furnaces 
were equal to the entire cycle time for the furnace (so there was no 
flaw in the testing periods, such that the furnace stack emissions

[[Page 56721]]

were not measured over the entire cycle);
     There was no introduction of dilution air between the 
furnace and the furnace stack sampling point; and
     The furnaces were operating in compliance with the NESHAP 
requirements.
    Therefore, although the test data are limited, we have identified 
no flaws in the testing procedures that render the results invalid, and 
we believe it is reasonable to rely on the test data to support our 
rule revision. In addition, it is undisputed that the test data are 
from a Subpart RRR-affected facility, and the commenter did not provide 
specific reasons to support its assertion that the tested furnaces are 
not ``indicative'' of the source category nor did commenters submit 
testing data to contradict, alter, or draw into question the EPA's 
conclusions. The commenter also did not explain why, or at what level, 
different capture efficiencies should be used based on differences in 
pollutants. We are certain that at least some unmeasured emissions 
escape from all uncontrolled group 1 furnaces during testing. 
Therefore, the only question is what fraction of the total emissions is 
directed to the furnace stack for measurement, and what fraction 
escapes as emissions that are not measured. Our estimate, based on the 
limited dataset, is that 80 percent of emissions at uncontrolled 
furnaces are captured and directed to the stack for measurement, while 
20 percent are emitted as unmeasured emissions. The revised testing 
procedures for uncontrolled furnaces were proposed in February 2012, 
with one comment period in 2012 and a second comment period after the 
2014 supplemental proposal, giving commenters ample time to collect and 
submit to EPA additional emissions test data, although none were 
submitted. In the absence of additional data, we relied on the only 
data available, although, upon further analysis of the data, we revised 
the capture efficiency from 67 percent to 80 percent.
    As noted by commenters, and supported by information they provided, 
the tops of round top furnaces must be removed for charging by cranes 
operating above the furnaces. Commenters stated that for a variety of 
design, technical, operational, and safety reasons, it was not feasible 
to install temporary hooding on existing round top furnaces. Based on 
our review of the information submitted by the commenters, we agree 
that ACGIH-compliant hoods are not possible to install on existing 
round top furnaces because the top of the furnace must be removed by a 
crane operating from above the furnace. We also agree that state and 
local agencies should not be burdened with the need for case-by-case 
impracticability determinations for existing round top furnaces. 
Consequently, we are excluding existing round top furnaces from the 
requirement either to install temporary ACGIH hooding or to use an 80-
percent capture efficiency assumption as well as the requirement for a 
petition of impracticality, but instead round top furnaces must be 
operated to minimize unmeasured emissions during testing.
    The commenters have not provided documentation to support an 
exclusion for other types of furnaces, such as box reverberatory 
furnaces and box reverberatory furnaces with a side door. For these 
furnaces, issues related to hooding during performance tests may or may 
not arise depending on the specific site installation, including 
factors such as the presence of surrounding equipment and other 
physical obstructions, limited access and overhead cranes that may make 
it impractical to install hooding. Therefore, the exclusion in the 
final rule applies only to existing round top furnaces.
    We note that, as discussed above, the final rule also provides 
flexibility for furnaces other than round top furnaces. Where an ACGIH-
compliant hood cannot be installed on a furnace for testing and an 80-
percent capture efficiency is not used, the source can petition the 
appropriate authority that temporary ACGIH hooding is impractical for 
the source and propose alternative testing procedures that will 
minimize unmeasured emissions. In some instances, furnace emissions can 
be captured and measured without ACGIH hooding. For example, the 
building may be operated as an enclosure, and emissions from the 
building can be measured (e.g., by installing a temporary fan and 
associated ductwork or a stack, and measuring emissions in that 
ductwork or stack). In addition, there is an alternate performance 
testing methods provision available in 63.1511(d).
    We disagree that new furnaces should be allowed the option to 
assume 80 percent of emissions are directed to the stack for 
measurement. We are allowing existing uncontrolled group 1 furnaces to 
use the 80-percent capture efficiency assumption, since the physical 
limitations of an existing furnace are already established. However, 
this is not the case for a new furnace; for a new furnace, adequate 
testing of the source can be achieved through the design of the 
furnace. This need not involve installation of a hood, since, for 
example, the building, or portion of the building in which the new 
furnace is located, could be used as an enclosure for the purpose of 
testing. As we stated earlier, adequate testing includes the 
responsibility to either provide a means of directing emissions to the 
sampling train, or to measure the capture efficiency of the equipment 
used to direct the emissions to the sampling train so that the overall 
emissions from the source can be determined.
    As discussed above, we have different requirements for new 
uncontrolled furnaces, including new uncontrolled round top furnaces, 
than for existing uncontrolled furnaces because we have concluded that 
proper conditions for testing are readily achieved in the design of a 
new furnace. However, in the specific case of reconstructed round top 
furnaces, we agree that they are likely to have the same physical 
constraints as existing round top furnaces that make it difficult or 
impossible to construct the temporary hooding needed for emissions 
testing. Therefore, the final rule provides reconstructed round top 
furnaces the same exemption from the provisions requiring the 
installation of temporary ACGIH hooding or the assumption of 80-percent 
capture efficiency as allowed for existing round top furnaces.
    Regarding the commenter's reference to the conditions of their 
Consent Decree, the decree at paragraph 122 states clearly that each 
company is responsible for achieving and maintaining complete 
compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations, and 
compliance with the Consent Decree does not necessarily mean compliance 
with the Clean Air Act or implementing regulations. Further, the 
Consent Decree does not limit the EPA's authority to revise Subpart 
RRR. Also note that the compliance date for the rule revisions 
concerning testing of uncontrolled furnaces is 2 years after 
promulgation. While it is not necessary to review the specific 
protocols of the Consent Decree for purposes of this rulemaking, the 
commenter can follow up with their EPA Regional Office regarding any 
concerns.
    Comment: In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated it should not be a prerequisite that facilities or emission 
sources must first conduct a failed compliance test using the 67-
percent capture efficiency assumption prior to petitioning permitting 
authorities that ACGIH equivalent hooding is impractical under the 
provisions of paragraph (e)(6). According to the commenter, some 
facilities know upfront that installing a

[[Page 56722]]

capture hood is impractical and that they cannot comply with a stack 
test assuming a 67-percent capture efficiency. The commenter 
recommended that the final rule provide owners and operators a third 
option to petition permitting authorities (prior to performance 
testing) that installation of hooding is impractical; this alternative 
would avoid costs associated with multiple performance tests, labor and 
administrative burdens and potential enforcement liability that would 
be associated a failed performance test.
    A commenter on the supplemental proposal stated that many of the 
hooding provisions are unworkable in actual practice, and the commenter 
therefore supports the petition process proposed for alternate capture/
collection systems, coupled with testing procedures designed to 
minimize fugitive emissions. The commenter stated that it is 
inefficient and a significant waste of resources to require initial 
testing under the assumption of a 67-percent capture efficiency for a 
facility where installing an ACGIH-compliant hood is impractical and 
the facility knows or expects that it cannot comply using the 67-
percent capture efficiency assumption. The commenter suggests it would 
be more efficient to allow facilities the option to submit a petition 
regarding the impracticality of hooding coupled with proposed testing 
procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions during the testing 
before the next required performance test occurs rather than after; 
this will minimize the likelihood of retesting and result in 
significant monetary, labor and efficiency savings.
    The commenter stated they assume that, in the event of testing/
retesting following the approval of a petition demonstrating the 
impracticability of hooding requirements, the 67-percent capture 
efficiency provisions would not be applicable to the results of the 
testing/retesting. However, because it is not specifically stated, the 
commenter seeks a clear statement to that effect in the final rule.
    The commenter requested that the language in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4) 
be revised as follows:
    ``When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 
operator must comply with the requirements of either paragraphs 
(e)(4)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this section at or prior to the next 
required performance test required by 63.1511(e).
    (i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or
    (ii) At least 180 days prior to testing, petition the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources, 
that such hoods are impractical under the provisions of paragraph 
(e)(6) of this section and propose testing procedures that will 
minimize fugitive emissions during the performance test according to 
the paragraph (e)(7) of this section, or
    (iii) Assume a 67-percent capture efficiency for the furnace 
exhaust (i.e., multiply emissions measured at the furnace exhaust 
outlet by 1.5). If the source fails to demonstrate compliance using the 
67-percent capture efficiency assumption, the owner or operator must 
re-test with a hood that meets the ACGIH Guidelines within 180 days, or 
petition the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources, within 180 days that such hoods are 
impractical under the provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this section 
and propose testing procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions 
during the performance test according to paragraph (e)(7) of this 
section.
    (iv) The 67-percent capture efficiency assumption is not applicable 
in the event of testing conducted under an approved petition submitted 
pursuant to (ii) or (iii) above.''
    The commenter stated that making these changes will also require 
that the existing proposed paragraph (iii) be re-designated as (v).
    Response: Based on the comments received, the EPA reevaluated the 
proposed requirements for testing uncontrolled furnaces. Based on our 
analysis of available data (described in the Technical Support Document 
for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category Final Rule, which 
is available in the docket), we believe that the vast majority of 
furnaces will be able to comply based on the 80 percent assumption. 
However, we agree that there might be cases where a facility owner or 
operator may know in advance that they cannot comply based on the 80-
percent capture efficiency assumption and that installing ACGIH hoods 
for testing is not practical, so to require them to conduct tests that 
they know in advance will fail is unreasonable and unnecessary. 
Therefore, the final rule provides an alternative for such cases 
whereby the facility owner or operator can petition their permitting 
authority at least 180 days in advance that ACGIH hooding is 
impractical and request approval of alternative testing procedures 
including measures they will take that will minimize unmeasured 
emissions during testing. The EPA has also clarified in the final rule 
that in testing or retesting following approval of a petition 
demonstrating impracticability of temporary ACGIH hooding, the 80-
percent capture efficiency assumption does not apply to the results of 
the testing or retesting.
    Comment: In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter 
requested that instead of the requirement for uncontrolled furnaces to 
conduct performance testing using ACGIH hooding, the EPA should allow, 
as they do for round top furnaces, the use of alternative procedures 
for the minimization of fugitive emissions during performance testing 
for consistency and cost considerations. The commenter stated that 
allowing all uncontrolled furnaces to use the work practices for the 
minimization of fugitive emissions, rather than install ACGIH hooding, 
would achieve the same capture efficiency during the performance test 
as it would for round top furnaces. The commenter further stated that 
the installation and use of an ACGIH hood is not cost effective and 
would create unnecessary costs simply to comply with testing 
requirements. A commenter on the supplemental proposal stated that the 
EPA should delete the ACGIH capture hood requirements for uncontrolled 
furnace testing and instead specify work practice alternatives for 
minimizing fugitive emissions during testing.
    Response: The commenters have not provided documentation to support 
an exclusion from ACGIH hooding and associated requirements for 
furnaces other than round top furnaces. Based on the limited 
information available to the EPA, we believe that, for these furnaces, 
issues related to hooding during performance tests may or may not arise 
depending on the specific site installation, including factors such as 
the presence of surrounding equipment and other physical obstructions, 
limited access, and overhead cranes that may make it impractical to 
install temporary hooding. Therefore, the exclusion in the final rule 
applies only to existing or reconstructed round top furnaces. As noted 
above, even if ACGIH-compliant hoods cannot be installed on a furnace, 
in some instances, furnace emissions can be captured and measured 
without ACGIH hooding. For example, the building may be able to be 
operated as an enclosure, and emissions from the building can be 
measured (e.g., by installing a temporary fan and associated ductwork 
or a stack, and measuring emissions in that ductwork or stack) if there 
are no other furnaces or other significant sources in the building of 
the pollutant to be measured. In addition, an owner or operator of an 
existing uncontrolled group 1 furnace other than a round top furnace 
has the choice of assuming an

[[Page 56723]]

80-percent capture efficiency for the furnace exhaust, or, if the 
source does not wish or fails to demonstrate compliance using the 80-
percent capture efficiency assumption, the owner or operator may 
petition the permitting authority that such temporary hoods are 
impractical.
    Comment: Three commenters cited safety concerns regarding the 
feasibility of fugitive emissions testing for group 1 uncontrolled 
furnaces.
    One commenter asserted that because of the broad spectrum of 
furnace designs and safe operating practices for the group 1 
uncontrolled furnace category, it is impossible to fully characterize 
the potential impacts on operator safety from EPA's proposed action. 
The commenter observed that to conduct an EPA Method 5 test at a hood 
requires an operator to be present for the duration of the emissions 
test in a location that industry standard safe operating practices 
prohibit. The commenter asserted that this proposed requirement would 
violate the industry standard operation procedure of the vast majority 
of group 1 uncontrolled furnaces, which require the removal of the 
operator from unsafe locations during normal furnace operation. The 
commenter stated that group 1 uncontrolled furnaces fall into two broad 
categories, those designed for operator presence on the furnace 
structure and those that do not have any infrastructure for operator 
presence above the furnace.
    One commenter stated that safe operation of furnaces that charge 
aluminum scrap only allows for operators to access the area above the 
furnace when the door is closed, and the cycle is in a steady state 
(i.e., not immediately following scrap charging), entirely precluding 
the operator from entering during operation. The commenter emphasizes 
that the operation of the proposed testing apparatus, in accordance 
with EPA Methods 1 and 2, would violate industry best practices for the 
safe operation of remelt furnaces.
    Response: We disagree that the Method 5 emissions tests must be 
conducted ``at a hood,'' and therefore have potential impacts on the 
safety of the testing equipment operators or furnace operators. The 
ductwork from the hood can lead to the same stack as the furnace. 
Therefore, fugitive emissions captured by the hood can be combined with 
emissions from the furnace, and testing can be conducted at the same 
stack location as the facility has historically tested. Furthermore, 
existing uncontrolled furnaces have the additional option of assuming 
an 80-percent capture efficiency and all uncontrolled furnaces may 
petition the appropriate authority that such hoods are impractical and 
propose testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions 
during testing.
    Comment: Three commenters asserted that design and installation 
costs for hooding are far higher when testing for group 1 uncontrolled 
furnaces than those provided by the EPA. One commenter estimated a cost 
of $120,000 to $500,000 per hood.
    One commenter noted that because these hoods and ductwork would 
have to be retrofitted to existing equipment, there is little or no 
economy of scale.
    Response: The commenters did not provide supporting calculations or 
a breakdown for their cost estimates. The EPA contacted the commenter 
that provided the higher estimated costs and requested additional 
information on their cost estimate. The commenter provided cost 
estimates for an installation of hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines on 
a Reverb Melter ($208,146) and a Tilting Holder ($238,012). The EPA 
used these cost estimates in a supplementary cost analysis to provide 
further information concerning the rule amendments being adopted in 
this final rule Cost Estimate for Rule Changes to Secondary Aluminum 
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. Based on the 
commenter's estimates, the average capital cost for the two 
installations is approximately $223,000. The 2012 cost can be scaled to 
2011 cost by applying the ratio of the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost 
Index for March 2011 (final--575.9) to March 2012 (preliminary--596.1), 
or a ratio of 0.966. Using this factor, the capital cost is estimated 
to be $215,400 per furnace. If this value is used in lieu of the 
original estimate (contained in supporting documentation for the 
proposed rule) of $76,000 for a single hood, all costs would increase 
by a factor of 2.83 (i.e., $215,400 divided by $76,000). Assuming 
temporary hooding will be installed on 107 furnaces, the total capital 
cost using this value would therefore conservatively be estimated to be 
$17,300,000 (i.e., $6,099,000 multiplied by 2.83). Note that the 
$6,099,000 cost estimate is based on an average cost per furnace of 
$57,000, based on the assumption that a hood for a second installation 
at a facility would cost half as much (i.e., ($76,000 + $38,000)/2 = 
$57,000). Similarly, using these higher cost estimates per furnace, the 
total annualized cost for the source category would be conservatively 
estimated at $3.46 million per year, and the total annualized cost per 
furnace would be approximately $32,300 per year. Therefore, 
conservatively assuming 107 furnaces install temporary hooding, total 
estimated annualized costs would range from $1.2 million per year to 
$3.46 million per year or an average of $2.3 million per year. Total 
annualized cost per furnace would range from $11,000 per year to 
$32,300 per year, or an average of $21,650 per year. We believe that 
these total cost estimates are conservative (more likely to be 
overestimates rather than underestimates) because these costs are based 
on the assumption that all of the estimated uncontrolled furnaces will 
choose to install temporary hooding rather than use the other options 
provided in the rule for addressing unmeasured emissions during 
performance testing.
    Comment: Two commenters, in response to the 2012 proposed rule, 
requested that the EPA revise proposed 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(ii) to list 
example work practices that the Agency considers acceptable for 
minimizing furnace fugitive emissions during a performance test. The 
commenters stated that the list of examples would provide permitting 
authorities some basis for evaluating proposed work practices and 
approving test procedures.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that, with the approval of the applicable permitting authority, when 
testing an uncontrolled reverberatory furnace, they have used a test 
plan that includes positioning one or more fans to direct flow into a 
furnace when the door is opened in order to minimize fugitive emissions 
escaping the furnace door. The commenter recommended paragraph 
63.1512(e)(7)(x) be added to read as follows:
    ``(x) Use of fans or other device to direct flow into a furnace 
when door is open.''
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that most of the ``testing procedures'' presented in sections 
63.1512(e)(7)(i) through (ix) of the proposed rule are reasonable 
suggestions for minimizing fugitive emissions. However, the commenter 
stated that, the installation of temporary baffles would have no 
practical effect on reducing fugitive emissions for the types of 
emission units regulated under this source category. The commenter 
stated that, additionally, increasing the exhaust rate will require 
additional fuels to be combusted and will cause an increase in dross 
production; both will result in particulate and HCl emission increases 
that would otherwise not be created. According to the commenter, the 
creation of additional dross will

[[Page 56724]]

produce a cascade of collateral environmental impacts: More dross must 
be processed, more dross processing HAP will be created, and there will 
be more residuals to be handled, transported and disposed.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that the language the EPA uses to introduce the procedures that can be 
used to minimize fugitive emissions in the preamble is better than that 
used in the original proposed rule at 63.1512(e)(7). The commenter 
stated that the preamble introduces alternatives for minimizing 
fugitive emissions with the words, ``[t]hese procedures may include, if 
practical, one or more of the following, but are not limited to . . . 
.'' The commenter stated that, in contrast, the proposed rule at 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(7) simply states, ``testing procedures that will minimize 
fugitive emissions may include, but are not limited to . . . .'' The 
commenter recommended that the EPA should include the phrase ``if 
practical, one or more of the following'' in the language of the rule 
at 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(7), because this construction makes clear that not 
every alternative to minimize fugitive emissions may be practical and 
therefore not all the listed alternatives are required.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that they have conducted testing of round top melting furnaces after 
development of a test plan, with the EPA's approval, as part of a 
Consent Decree and as approved by the applicable permitting authority. 
The commenter stated that this procedure involves removing the top once 
and placing a representative but lighter charge into the furnace and 
replacing the top. The commenter stated that the charge includes all 
materials normally charged into the furnace but a charge size of 
approximately 25 percent to 35 percent of normal; this procedure 
minimizes fugitive emissions from the furnace. The commenter stated 
that while they believe this procedure meets the intent of paragraph 
63.1512(e)(7)(v), they request that the paragraph be revised as 
follows:
    (v) ``In order to minimize time the furnace door or top is open, it 
is permissible to add a smaller but representative charge into the 
furnace at one time and conduct the test without additional charge.''
    Response: In response to the commenters' requests, we have included 
in the final rule a list of example procedures for minimizing 
unmeasured emissions during testing. These procedures may include, if 
practical, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
     Installing a hood that does not meet ACGIH guidelines;
     Using the building as an enclosure, and measuring 
emissions exhausted from the building if there are no other furnaces or 
other significant sources in the building of the pollutants to be 
measured;
     Installing temporary baffles on the sides or top of the 
furnace opening, if it is practical to do so where they will not 
interfere with material handling or with the furnace door opening and 
closing;
     Minimizing the time the furnace doors are open or the top 
is off;
     Delaying gaseous reactive fluxing until charging doors are 
closed and the top is on;
     Agitating or stirring molten metal as soon as practicable 
after salt flux addition and closing doors as soon as possible after 
solid fluxing operations, including mixing and dross removal;
     Keeping building doors and other openings closed to the 
greatest extent possible to minimize drafts that would divert emissions 
from being drawn into the furnace;
     Maintain burners on low-fire or pilot operation while the 
doors are open or the top is off;
     Use of fans or other device to direct flow into a furnace 
when door is open; or
     Removing the furnace cover once in order to add a smaller 
but representative charge and then replacing the cover.
    We disagree that baffles would be ineffective in reducing 
unmeasured emissions in all cases and note that they are just one of 
several options that can be used, as appropriate, to reduce unmeasured 
emissions during testing of uncontrolled furnaces. One way that baffles 
can reduce unmeasured emissions is to keep the smoke puff that escapes 
the furnace when the scrap is first put in from leaving the area around 
the furnace. Therefore, some of the smoke can be pulled back into the 
furnace after the seconds-long initial puff of smoke. Baffles also tend 
to produce a higher-velocity corridor leading to the furnace face, also 
making it more likely that the puff of smoke that escapes the furnace 
during charging will subsequently get pulled back into the furnace. 
Furthermore, their use would be temporary only for the time that the 
furnace doors are open to accept a charge. As proposed, the final rule 
includes the use of baffles as one testing procedure that can be used 
to minimize unmeasured emissions but does not require that they be 
used.
    We agree with the comment that increasing exhaust rate may tend to 
increase dross production, with a resultant increase in PM and HCl 
emissions. Therefore, even though increasing exhaust rate will improve 
capture, we are removing the example of raising flow rate from the list 
of methods to minimize fugitive emissions.
    We disagree with the comment that 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(7) does not 
adequately introduce the procedures that can be used to minimize 
unmeasured emissions. We believe that the wording at 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(7) clearly conveys that any one of the listed procedures, or 
others that are not listed, may be used to minimize unmeasured 
emissions during testing. The regulatory wording does not require their 
use. Therefore, the final rule has not been revised as requested by the 
commenter.
    We agree that, as the commenter recommended, using a smaller but 
representative charge, could reduce the amount of time that furnace 
doors are open, and could therefore reduce the amount of emissions that 
are not captured and measured during testing of uncontrolled furnaces. 
Because emission limits for group 1 furnaces are in units of mass of 
pollutant per unit of mass of feed, the mass of the charge by itself 
does not affect the validity of test results. The final rule includes 
the use of smaller but representative charges as another alternative to 
minimizing unmeasured emissions during testing of uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces. If a single test condition is not expected to produce the 
highest level of emissions for all HAP, testing under two or more sets 
of conditions (for example high contamination at low feed/charge rate 
and low contamination at high feed/charge rate) may be required.
    Comment: Two commenters on the 2012 proposal requested that the EPA 
extend the timeline proposed for retesting under 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4)(ii) to 240 days. The commenter asserted that the 
requirement proposed in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(ii) to ``retest with a 
hood that meets ACGIH Guidelines within 90 days'' is not practicable. 
For the proposed provision to be workable, the commenter argued, the 
EPA needs to allow at least 240 days for retesting with an ACGIH hood 
if a source fails to demonstrate compliance using the 67-percent 
capture efficiency assumption.
    Response: The EPA agrees with commenters that the 90-day period for 
retesting in the 2012 proposal was insufficient. Based on further 
review and comments received, in the supplemental proposal, the EPA 
proposed a 180-day period for the retesting provisions in section 
63.1512(e)(4). We received no comments on the 2014 supplemental 
proposal objecting to the 180-day retesting

[[Page 56725]]

period. Therefore, instead of the initially proposed 90-day retesting 
period, we are adopting in the final rule a 180-day period for a source 
that fails to demonstrate compliance using the capture efficiency 
assumption either to: (1) Retest with an ACGIH-compliant hood; or (2) 
petition the permitting authority that such hoods are impractical for 
the furnace and propose testing procedures that will minimize 
unmeasured emissions during testing.
    Comment: In a comment on the supplemental proposal regarding 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4)(iii), one commenter stated that it is not clear if the 
EPA intends to exempt all round top furnaces in operation on the 
publication date of the proposal, or if round top furnaces that 
commenced construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999, (new) 
are purposely being excluded. The commenter suggested the language be 
revised to the following:
    ``Existing and new round top furnaces are exempt . . . .''
    Response: As proposed in the 2014 supplemental proposal, the final 
rule exempts existing round top furnaces from the testing requirements 
for uncontrolled furnaces in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii). 
In response to a comment on the supplemental proposal, we have expanded 
the exemption to also apply to reconstructed round top furnaces. The 
intent of the EPA is that existing and reconstructed round top furnaces 
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 12, 
2012, are exempt, and new round top furnaces that commence construction 
after February 12, 2012, are not exempt, from the testing requirements 
for uncontrolled furnaces in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii). 
Therefore, we are not adopting the revised language suggested by the 
commenter.
    Comment: One commenter asked that the EPA clarify in 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4)(ii) what constitutes ``impractical'' with respect to 
installing temporary capture hoods.
    Response: In response to the commenter, 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(6) of the 
final rule clarifies in what circumstances installation of temporary 
capture hoods would be considered impractical.
    Temporary capture hooding installation is considered impractical 
if:
     Building or equipment obstructions (for example, wall, 
ceiling, roof, structural beams, utilities, overhead crane, or other) 
are present such that the temporary hood cannot be located consistent 
with acceptable hood design and installation practices;
     Space limitations or work area constraints exist such that 
the temporary hood cannot be supported or located to prevent 
interference with normal furnace operations or avoid unsafe working 
conditions for the furnace operator; and/or
     Other obstructions and limitations subject to agreement of 
the permitting authority.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for testing of 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces?
    As discussed above and in the 2012 and 2014 proposals, we are 
finalizing compliance alternatives addressing capture and collection of 
emissions for uncontrolled furnaces during performance testing. Owners 
and operators of uncontrolled furnaces have the options of installing 
temporary ACGIH-compliant hooding for testing or assuming that the 
capture efficiency of the furnace exhaust is 80 percent without 
installing hooding. Further options are provided if a source fails to 
comply using the 80-percent capture efficiency assumption or decides 
not to use the 80-percent assumption and instead petitions at least 180 
days in advance that ACGIH hooding is impractical for the furnace and 
for approval of alternative testing procedures, including measures that 
will minimize unmeasured emissions during testing. The final rule 
exempts existing and reconstructed round top furnaces from these 
requirements due to the infeasibility of installing hooding. The final 
rule clarifies the circumstances under which the installation of 
temporary ACGIH hooding is considered impractical and specifies work 
practices that can be used to minimize unmeasured emissions during 
testing of uncontrolled furnaces.

D. Changing Furnace Classification

1. What did we propose regarding changing furnace classification?
    In the 2012 proposal, we proposed to address an area of uncertainty 
under Subpart RRR by specifying in 40 CFR 63.1514 rule provisions 
expressly allowing changes in furnace classification, subject to 
procedural and testing requirements, operating requirements and 
recordkeeping requirements. We proposed a frequency limit of no more 
than one change in classification (and associated reversion) every six 
months, with an exception for planned control device maintenance 
activities requiring shutdown. We received comments on the 2012 
proposal requesting additional or unlimited changes in furnace 
classification. Based on the information received, we reevaluated the 
appropriate limit on frequency of furnace classification changes. The 
EPA received from one commenter an inventory of the number of 
classification changes that occurred each year at a specific Subpart 
RRR furnace over a nearly 10-year period (available in the docket for 
this rulemaking). The highest number of furnace classification changes 
in one year, including both planned and unplanned changes, was nine.
    Based on the comments and information received, we proposed in our 
2014 supplemental proposal a revised limit on the frequency of changes 
in furnace classification of four in any 6-month period, with a 
provision allowing additional changes by petitioning the appropriate 
authority.
2. What changed since proposal regarding changing furnace 
classification?
    Based on our consideration of the comments and additional 
information received following the 2012 proposal and the supplemental 
proposal, the following changes are incorporated into the final rule:
     Added a provision that if compliance has already been 
demonstrated for a given operating mode, performance testing is not 
required, provided the testing was in compliance with the provisions in 
40 CFR 63.1511;
     Added clarification in Sec. Sec.  63.1514(a)(2)(iii) and 
(4)(iii), (b)(2)(iii) (b)(4)(iii), and (c) on establishing the number 
of tap-to-tap cycles elapsed (or time elapsed for continuously operated 
units) during performance testing as a parameter to be met before 
changing to uncontrolled mode, and provisions for continuous 
operations;
     Removed the proposed requirement to complete one or more 
charge-to-tap cycles or 24 hours of operation prior to changing furnace 
operating mode in Sec. Sec.  63.1514(2)(i) and (4)(i), (b)(2)(i), 
(b)(4)(i), (c)(2)(i), (c)(4)(i);
     Added 40 CFR 63.1514(b)(4)(iv) that requires that D/F 
emissions determined at performance test must not exceed 1.5 ug D/F 
TEQ/Mg of feed/charge to demonstrate that it qualifies as a group 2 
furnace. This section was added for consistency with Sec.  
63.1514(b)(2)(iv);
     Clarified Sec. Sec.  63.1514(c)(5) and (6) with respect to 
requirements for changing operating modes between a group 1 and a group 
2 furnace; and
     Removed the proposed requirement for area sources to 
conduct performance

[[Page 56726]]

tests every 5 years in 40 CFR 63.1514(d)(2).
3. What key comments did we receive regarding changing furnace 
classification?
    Comment: Several comments were received objecting to the proposed 
limits on the frequency of changing furnace classification. Four 
commenters on the 2012 proposal asked that the EPA allow controlled 
furnaces to change operating modes more frequently than once every 6 
months. The commenters particularly noted the need for flexibility for 
unplanned baghouse maintenance and repair. Although the 2012 proposed 
rule allows a change of operating mode for planned maintenance of air 
pollution control devices, the commenters stated that a restriction to 
``once every 6 months'' for unplanned maintenance is ill-advised 
because such a restriction may result in shutdown of the entire casting 
operation or encourage an owner or operator to delay baghouse shutdown 
and repairs that could be initiated immediately by changing to a 
``cleaner'' operating mode that has already been demonstrated to comply 
with the applicable emission limits. One commenter stated that the 
proposed limit (of once every 6 months) on the frequency of changes 
other than for ``planned'' maintenance would severely limit facility 
flexibility. One of the commenters requested the EPA to revise 40 CFR 
63.1514(e) to allow controlled furnaces to change operating modes (and 
revert to prechange operating mode) without restriction on frequency, 
when the air pollution control device must be shutdown for both planned 
and unplanned maintenance.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal noted that in the proposed 40 
CFR 63.1514(e), the proposed requirements for operating in different 
modes include testing to demonstrate compliance under each mode, 
revising the OM&M plan to reflect all planned operating modes and 
revising labels to display compliant operating parameters for each 
operating mode. The commenter observed that the EPA has listed 
recordkeeping requirements when changing furnace classifications, but 
the EPA has not listed any barriers to implementation or enforcement 
once a stack test has been performed demonstrating compliance and an 
OM&M plan submitted. The commenter concludes that if tests prove 
compliance while operating in each mode, there is no justification for 
restricting the frequency of changes.
    One commenter noted interactions over several years between the 
commenter and the EPA regarding the use of alternative operating 
scenarios. The commenter stated that those communications (and 
litigation) resulted in a February 16, 2012, Applicability 
Determination (which was attached to their comment). The commenter 
noted that the commenter had explained the need for flexibility to 
change operating modes in this proposed rule to EPA in a letter dated 
January 18, 2012, (also attached to their comment). The commenter 
recommended that the EPA use the approach in the February 16, 2012, 
Applicability Determination in Subpart RRR.
    In a comment on the 2014 supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated that the EPA has not adequately explained why it is proposing to 
allow 4 changes in furnace operating mode, or provided any reasoned 
explanation for why these changes are lawful and reasonable, in view of 
the requirement that standards apply at all times. The commenter stated 
that before allowing such changes to be made by a facility, the EPA 
must ensure that this is not equivalent to an exemption from the 
standards, which a facility may take advantage of under the EPA's 
proposal four times a year.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the 2012 proposed rule, 
the EPA proposed to address an area of uncertainty under Subpart RRR by 
allowing changes in furnace classification, or furnace operating mode, 
subject to procedural and testing requirements and a limit on frequency 
of no more than one change (and associated reversion) every 6 months. 
As summarized above, the EPA received comments on the 2012 proposal 
requesting additional or unlimited furnace classification changes. 
Based on the comments received, the EPA reevaluated the limit on 
frequency of furnace classification changes. The EPA received from a 
commenter an inventory of the number of classification changes that 
occurred each year at a specific furnace over a nearly 10-year period 
(available in the docket for this rulemaking). The highest number of 
furnace classification changes for this furnace in one year, including 
both planned and unplanned changes, was nine.
    In response to the comments and information received and because of 
the potential difficulty in distinguishing between a planned and 
unplanned change, in the 2014 supplemental proposal we proposed a 
revised frequency limit of four (including the four associated 
reversions) in any 6-month period, including both planned and unplanned 
events, with a provision allowing additional changes by petitioning the 
appropriate authority. The EPA explained that the revised limit 
balances the interest in allowing furnace classification changes while 
preserving the EPA's and delegated authorities' practical and effective 
enforcement of the emission limitations, work practice standards, and 
other requirements of Subpart RRR.
    Based on the EPA's experience in overseeing facilities' compliance 
with the Subpart RRR NESHAP, the EPA believes it will be challenging in 
many circumstances for a regulatory compliance inspector to 
retroactively confirm which of two scrap inventories (i.e., one clean 
charge and the other non-clean charge) was processed in a furnace at a 
given time in the past, and whether the allowed type of feed/charge was 
used for the furnace classification that was applicable for that time 
period. Similarly, it may be difficult to determine if the flux type 
and flux rate applied during that time period were compliant with the 
then-applicable furnace classification. The difficulty of verifying the 
inputs to the calculations used to determine SAPU emission limits, and 
daily and rolling average SAPU emission rates when furnace control 
device status and feed/charge type are frequently changed for one or 
more emission units within a SAPU may lead to further uncertainty in 
verifying compliance. On-site inspections may be difficult to conduct 
properly if the selected provisions of the OM&M plan applicable to 
furnace operation on the day and time of the inspection are subject to 
frequent change. For all of these reasons, increased frequency of 
allowed furnace classification changes places greater burdens on 
regulatory oversight agencies and personnel and creates the potential 
for impaired regulatory oversight.
    In recognition of the issues raised by allowing repeated changes in 
furnace classification and applicable emission standards, the EPA is 
finalizing a limit of four on the number of times in a 6-month period a 
Subpart RRR facility may change classification of a furnace (e.g., 
changing furnace classification from a controlled group 1 furnace to an 
uncontrolled group 2 furnace, and back). The EPA appreciates the value 
in providing operational flexibility for regulated sources, but 
believes the limit is necessary to ensure effective implementation and 
regulatory oversight of the rule. Facilities are allowed to change 
furnace classification up to four times during a 6-month period. The 
final rule clarifies that a

[[Page 56727]]

change from one operating mode to another and back is considered one 
change in operating mode. The EPA believes allowing unlimited changes 
of furnace classification would be impractical, as the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling requirement changes associated 
with changing furnace classifications would be difficult for the 
regulated community to follow and for the regulatory agencies to 
determine and verify continuous compliance. Furthermore, the EPA and 
state agency experience has shown that some facilities have difficulty 
preventing excess emissions from entering the flue gas from group 1 
furnaces, and, therefore, changing from a group 1 furnace to a group 2 
or uncontrolled group 1 status using cleaner charge may not necessarily 
result in a reduction of emissions. More frequent changes in furnace 
classifications could result in a greater potential for excess 
emissions in some instances. The EPA selected the number of allowable 
changes in furnace classifications based on information and data 
received from industry on the number of changes in furnace 
classification over an annual period. The EPA believes that four 
changes per 6-month period will allow industry the flexibility it needs 
while maintaining confidence in the level of implementation, compliance 
and enforcement that can be achieved in changing from one 
classification to another. If a source needs additional classification 
changes in a 6-month period, the rule allows the source to petition the 
appropriate authority for approval.
    Following the 2014 supplemental proposal, we received two positive 
comments from industry on the revised frequency limit and the option to 
request additional changes if needed. Only one comment was received 
opposing the revised frequency limit. It does not appear to the EPA 
that the ability to change furnace modes has been an issue for most of 
the secondary aluminum production industry. Furthermore, the commenter 
opposing the revised limit did not provide additional data to support a 
greater frequency or the need for an unlimited frequency. We note that 
in the supplemental proposal, we specifically requested ``any commenter 
who would like the EPA to consider a different limit on frequency to 
include a specific rationale and factual basis for why a different 
frequency would be appropriate as well as any data on historical 
frequencies of furnace classification changes under subpart RRR.'' 79 
FR at 72902. In addition, the EPA is finalizing a rule provision to 
allow the industry to request approval for a greater frequency of 
furnace classification changes if needed for their particular 
operation. Based on data from industry and the comments received on the 
supplemental proposal, we do not believe that it is necessary to 
further revise the limit on the frequency of furnace changes. In this 
final rule, we allow four changes in furnace classification per 6-month 
period with the option of requesting in advance additional changes from 
the appropriate authority.
    In response to the same commenter's suggestion that EPA ``adopt the 
approach'' in a 2012 EPA letter allowing changes in classification for 
a furnace owned by the commenter, the EPA notes the letter addressed 
only a single, relatively unusual ``tilt type'' reverberatory furnace 
``in contrast to most reverberatory furnaces'' and was located at an 
area source subject only to D/F limits and not the other limits 
applicable to major sources under Subpart RRR. The letter also 
expressly provided that it did not limit the EPA's authority to revise 
Subpart RRR requirements through rulemaking.
    We believe the February 16, 2012, applicability determination is 
conceptually consistent with the rule changes, particularly for the 
specific type of furnace at issue in that determination. The Subpart 
RRR rule changes build upon several elements of the February 16, 2012, 
determination to address concerns that switching operating modes for 
any furnace subject to Subpart RRR be done in a manner that is fully 
compliant with Subpart RRR for each operating mode, while at the same 
time avoiding overly burdensome requirements for industry.
    In response to the commenter on the 2014 supplemental proposal who 
asserted that EPA has not adequately explained how it is lawful and 
reasonable to allow four furnace classification changes per year in 
view of the requirement that standards apply at all times and must 
ensure this is not an exemption from standards, we provided such an 
explanation in the 2012 proposed rule preamble, and the commenter did 
not submit any comments in response to the 2012 proposed rule. In the 
2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed a revised limit on frequency of 
classification changes, but we proposed no other revision and stated we 
``are not requesting comments on any other aspect of the proposed 
provisions for furnace classification changes.'' 79 FR at 72902. The 
comment refers to the revised proposed limit of four changes (per 6-
month period, not per year as described by the commenter), but the 
substance of the comment concerns continuity of emission standards and 
potential exemption from standards, which are not specific to the 
frequency limit and were addressed previously in the 2012 proposal.
    We note that the rule ensures this is not an exemption from 
standards. As discussed above, there was uncertainty about whether 
Subpart RRR allowed changes in furnace classification, but, at least in 
some specific circumstances and conditions, furnace classification 
changes were allowed under the existing rule. The EPA addressed the 
issue in the 2012 and 2014 proposals and is finalizing rule provisions 
clarifying the procedural, testing, operating, and recordkeeping 
requirements when changing furnace operating modes, so as to ensure 
continuous compliance with Subpart RRR standards. The final rule 
specifies how a furnace can lawfully change from one operating mode 
under the rule to another and does not at any time exempt a furnace 
from meeting applicable standards.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the EPA's addition to 
Subpart RRR of any provisions regulating the changing of furnace 
classification. A commenter on the 2012 proposal stated that the 
proposed rule will severely restrict flexibility, while the EPA is 
taking credit for saving the industry $600,000 by ``allowing'' actions 
that were previously unrestricted. The commenter proposes that all 
language pertaining to furnace change classification be removed from 
the proposed rule.
    In a comment on the 2014 supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated that any restrictions on changing furnace classification are 
unnecessarily burdensome and do not provide any additional 
environmental benefit. The commenter stated that Subpart RRR as 
promulgated in 2000 provides sufficient basis for facilities to change 
furnace classification while maintaining compliance with the emission 
limits and other requirements. The commenter attached a 2012 letter 
from Edward J. Messina, in which the EPA acknowledges that a facility 
``may change operating modes consistent with Subpart RRR'' and ``can 
comply with Subpart RRR when it operates within one (and only one) of 
three proposed operating modes for the entirety of any given melt 
cycle.'' The commenter provided a copy of the 2012 letter as part of 
their submittal. The commenter stated that they revised their

[[Page 56728]]

Kalamazoo, Michigan, facility's Permit to Install, to include the 
ability to change furnace classification consistent with the EPA's 2012 
letter and have successfully changed from group 1 to group 2 operation 
in response to unexpected baghouse system malfunctions while 
maintaining compliance with the applicable emission limits and other 
requirements of Subpart RRR.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, the same commenter 
stated that the EPA attempts to justify the restrictions on changing 
furnace classification as necessary for practical and effective 
enforcement of Subpart RRR; however, the EPA does not mention any 
occasion in the 14 year history of the MACT rule when a facility's use 
of these provisions has resulted in any problem related to enforcement 
or compliance. The commenter stated that facilities have been using the 
ability to change furnace classification while maintaining compliance 
with all of the requirements of Subpart RRR for some time without 
creating any enforcement or compliance problems. The EPA has provided 
no rational basis for imposing this additional regulatory burden. The 
commenter recommended the EPA adopt the approach to changing furnace 
classification provided in the 2012 EPA determination (the commenter 
attached the 2012 letter to their comments), which does not restrict 
frequency of changes and does not require testing with a number of 
cycles of clean charge prior to unplanned changes, which is unnecessary 
and impracticable.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that changes in furnace classification 
were unrestricted prior to this rulemaking. As explained in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, the existing Subpart RRR regulatory text 
did not explicitly address whether and under what conditions a furnace 
may change its classification from one operating mode to another. This 
led to uncertainty for facilities and permitting authorities when 
considering and evaluating compliance options. The rule provisions 
governing changes in furnace classification are intended to provide 
clarity and add flexibility for the industry when, for example, normal 
feed materials are temporarily unavailable and there is a desire by the 
facility to operate the furnace in a different mode.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that there have been no 
problems related to enforcement or compliance for facilities changing 
furnace classification in the 14-year history of the MACT rule. 
Although we have very limited data on the practice of changing furnace 
classification in the industry, in part because we received data from 
only two companies following the 2012 proposal, we know that some 
facilities have submitted requests to authorities that they be allowed 
to change furnace classification and some of these requests were 
denied. In such cases, the absence of national regulations clearly 
stating whether and under what conditions the practice is allowed under 
Subpart RRR served to limit compliance flexibility and was potentially 
costly to facilities that sought to change their furnace operating 
mode. Therefore, the addition of these provisions provide clear 
instructions to regulatory agencies and the industry on the criteria 
and procedures necessary to change from one furnace classification to a 
different one.
    Comment: Two commenters on the 2012 proposal disagreed with the 
EPA's proposal to allow secondary aluminum producers to switch furnace 
classification only after having one or more cycles of operation with 
clean charge before a control device can be turned off. The commenters 
stated that data from tests on two Alcoa furnaces show that there is no 
carryover of emissions from one charge to the next, and, by requiring 
operators to wait more than one cycle of operation before turning off 
the control device, the rule restricts a facility's ability to take 
timely action to repair an air pollution control device in the event of 
an unexpected equipment breakdown.
    One of the commenters on the 2012 proposal described multiple 
instances of performance tests for two melting furnaces regarding 
emissions of batches operated with clean charge immediately after using 
dirty charge. The commenter provided summaries of the performance 
tests, and the tests show that emissions measured during the very next 
furnace cycle after using dirty charge were below the group 1 furnace 
emission limits.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that the requirement in the 2012 proposal to wait one or more 
operational cycles before turning off the control device when switching 
to clean charge in a furnace classification change is not supported by 
available data indicating that there is not ``carry-over'' of emissions 
from one batch to the next. The commenter cited furnace testing data 
from testing at Alcoa's Lancaster, Pennsylvania, facility.
    One commenter stated that the preamble to the supplemental proposal 
does not state whether the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement 
in 40 CFR 63.1514 of the 2012 proposal to wait one or more charge-to-
tap cycles using clean charge and without reactive flux addition before 
the performance test can be performed for a change from group 1 to 
group 2 operation. The commenter stated that, based on the proposed 
requirements, because the change of classification to a furnace without 
add-on control cannot be made until waiting the number of cycles 
operated during the performance test with clean charge (and without 
adding reactive flux), a classification change in this scenario could 
not be made in response to an unplanned event such as an unexpected 
baghouse malfunction. The commenter stated that facilities would be 
prevented from responding to unexpected baghouse system malfunctions by 
changing to group 2 operation. The commenter stated that similar 
restrictions are contained in 2012 proposed 40 CFR 63.1514 for changing 
from group 1 with add-on controls to group 1 without add-on controls. 
The commenter stated that the EPA provides no justification for 
requiring a facility to wait one or more charge-to-tap cycles before 
testing without add-on controls; therefore, the provision contained in 
the supplemental proposal cannot provide for reclassification during 
unplanned changes such as baghouse malfunction.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal asserted that if the EPA retains 
a flush cycle requirement in order to reclassify furnaces, each 
scenario should provide a time-based option for determining when the 
furnace can be reclassified. The commenter observed that the proposed 
sections 63.1514(a)(2)(i), (a)(4)(i), (c)(2)(i) and (c)(4)(i) allow 
either a number of charge-to-tap cycles or an operating time of 24 
hours to elapse prior to furnace reclassification, and sections 
63.1514(b)(2)(i) and (b)(4)(i) only provide a number of charge-to-tap 
cycles, and do not provide a time-based alternative. The commenter also 
suggested that instead of requiring ``1 or more charge to tap cycles, 
or 24 operating hours,'' the rule should require ``1 or more operating 
cycles or time period used in the performance test.'' The commenter 
explained that this language is more consistent with the description of 
``furnace cycle'' used throughout Subpart RRR, and is more appropriate 
because a process cycle for some continuous operations is less than 24 
hours.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal asked that the text for 40 CFR 
63.1514(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 63.1514(b)(4)(i), ``Testing under this 
paragraph may be conducted at any time

[[Page 56729]]

after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles with 
clean charge,'' be changed to ``Testing under this paragraph may be 
conducted at any time after the furnace has been tapped and has 
completed at least one (1) more additional cycle with clean charge.''
    A commenter on the 2012 proposal observed that the proposed rule 
inconsistently uses the phrase ``additional tests,'' which appears to 
apply to operating modes for which the facility has already 
demonstrated compliance by conducting a valid performance test. The 
commenter noted that the February 16, 2012, Applicability Determination 
already specifies that testing is required to demonstrate compliance 
with emission limits for each operating mode, and requiring additional 
tests would add expense without any added environmental benefit.
    Another commenter on the 2012 proposal observed that this proposed 
provision would require ``additional tests'' to demonstrate compliance 
with operating modes that already have valid performance tests. The 
commenter objected to the EPA requiring area sources to retest every 5 
years. The commenter also objected to the EPA requiring that tilting 
melters at area sources in group 2 operating mode perform stack 
testing.
    Response: In response to the comments and information provided by 
the commenters, the EPA agrees that it is not necessary to require one 
or more cycles with clean charge before a control device can be shut 
off under the change of classification procedures. As such, we have 
modified the final rule, accordingly.
    The EPA has also removed the requirement that furnaces at area 
sources using group 2 as any alternative operating mode repeat the 
performance test every 5 years. Our use of the phrase ``additional 
performance tests'' in 40 CFR 63.1514 was not intended to apply to 
operating modes for which the facility has already demonstrated 
compliance by conducting a valid and relevant performance test. 
Accordingly, we have modified the final rule language in 40 CFR 63.1514 
to make it clear that performance tests must be performed only if 
compliance for the operating mode has not already been demonstrated by 
a valid performance test and have clarified 40 CFR 63.1514 to indicate 
that ``additional tests'' are not required for operating modes for 
which the facility has already demonstrated compliance by conducting a 
valid performance test. In response to the commenter's objection to 
requiring a tilting melter to test when in group 2 mode, neither the 
proposed rule nor the final rule contains such a requirement for any 
tilting reverberatory furnace capable of completely removing furnace 
contents between batches.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for changing furnace 
classification?
    The final rule addresses an area of uncertainty under Subpart RRR 
by specifying rule provisions expressly allowing changes in furnace 
classification from one authorized operating mode to another, including 
from a controlled furnace operating mode to an uncontrolled furnace 
operating mode, subject to procedural and testing requirements, 
operating requirements and recordkeeping requirements. The final rule 
allows changes in furnace operating modes up to four times (including 
the four associated reversions) in a 6-month period. This frequency of 
changes in furnace operating modes is based on limited information 
submitted by industry on the number of furnaces changes that occur, 
taking into account the increased burden on the EPA and delegated 
states to oversee compliance for furnaces that repeatedly change their 
classification and associated emission standards and compliance 
requirements under Subpart RRR. The final rule allows sources to 
request additional changes in furnace operating mode by petitioning the 
permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area 
sources.

E. Flow Rate Measurements and Annual Inspections of Capture/Collection 
Systems

1. What did we propose regarding flow rate measurements and annual 
inspections of capture/collection systems?
    In the 2012 proposal, we proposed codifying in Subpart RRR our 
existing interpretation that annual hood inspections include flow rate 
measurements using EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2 in Appendix A to 40 
CFR part 60. These flow rate measurements supplement the effectiveness 
of the required visual inspection for leaks, to reveal the presence of 
obstructions in the ductwork, confirm that fan efficiency has not 
declined and provide a measured value for air flow. Commenters on the 
2012 proposal requested that the EPA allow flexibility in the methods 
used to complete the annual inspections of capture/collection systems 
stating that the use of volumetric flow measurement was often not 
necessary and Method 1 and 2 tests could be a cost burden for some 
facilities. Comments also indicated that routine, but less frequent, 
flow rate measurements could ensure that capture/collection systems are 
operated properly and suggested alternative methods of ensuring the 
efficiency of capture/collection systems.
    Based on the comments received and our consideration of inspection 
needs, in the 2014 supplemental proposal we proposed additional options 
that provide more flexibility in how affected sources can verify the 
efficiency of their capture/collection system. Instead of annual 
Methods 1 and 2 testing, we proposed that sources may choose to perform 
flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1 and 2 once every 5 years, 
provided that a flow rate indicator consisting of a pitot tube and 
differential pressure gauge is installed and used to record daily the 
differential pressure and to ensure that the differential pressure is 
maintained at or above 90 percent of the average pressure differential 
measured during the most recent Method 2 performance test series, and 
that the flow rate indicator is inspected annually. As another option 
to annual flow rate measurements using Methods 1 and 2, the EPA 
proposed to allow Methods 1 and 2 testing to be performed every 5 years 
provided that daily measurements of the revolutions per minute (RPM) of 
the capture and collection system's fan pr a fan motor amperage (amps) 
are taken, the readings are recorded daily, and the fan RPM or amps are 
maintained at or above 90 percent of the average RPM or amps measured 
during the most recent Method 2 performance test. Furthermore, we 
proposed that as an alternative to the flow rate measurements using 
Methods 1 and 2, the annual hood inspection requirements can be 
satisfied by conducting annual verification of a permanent total 
enclosure using EPA Method 204. We further proposed that as an 
alternative to the annual verification of a permanent total enclosure 
using EPA Method 204, verification can be performed once every 5 years 
if negative pressure in the enclosure is directly monitored by a 
pressure indicator and readings are recorded daily or the system is 
interlocked to halt material feed should the system not operate under 
negative pressure. We also proposed that readings outside a specified 
range would need to be investigated and steps taken to restore normal 
operation, and that pressure indicators would need to

[[Page 56730]]

be inspected annually for damage and operability.
2. What changed since proposal regarding flow rate measurements and 
annual inspections of capture/collection systems?
    The final rule contains modified monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 
63.1510(d) to allow the use of non-pitot based flow rate measuring 
equipment (i.e., hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 
pressure differential sensor, venturi pressure differential monitoring 
or orifice plate) equipped with an associated thermocouple and 
automated data logging software and associated hardware. These 
monitoring provisions provide the secondary aluminum production source 
category with flexibility and less costly alternatives to annual 
inspections using Methods 1 and 2 and Method 204 while also ensuring 
the proper operation of capture and collection systems.
3. What key comments did we receive regarding flow rate measurements 
and annual inspections of capture/collection systems?
    Comment: One commenter on the 2012 proposal contended that the EPA 
should continue to allow affected sources flexibility in methods used 
to complete annual inspections of capture/collection and closed vent 
systems. The commenter stated that the proposed rule would add a 
volumetric flow measurement requirement, which is unnecessary in many 
cases, to demonstrate proper operation of the capture/collection and 
closed vent system. The commenter contended that current rule 
flexibility allows sources to utilize monitoring methods that are 
appropriate and cost effective for their operations and equipment; this 
choice of monitoring method is included in an approved OM&M plan 
certified by the owner or operator. The commenter also noted that the 
additional cost burden on facilities to perform a Method 1 and Method 2 
measurement was not considered by the EPA in the rulemaking process. 
The commenter estimated that EPA Methods 1 and 2 will require the 
facility to hire an outside contractor and incur costs of more than 
$3,000 per unit. The commenter recommended that the Agency should 
continue to allow affected sources the ability to determine the best 
inspection methods to verify that capture/collection and closed vent 
systems meet operating requirements.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal discussed 40 CFR 63.1510(d)(2), 
stating that while in agreement with the need to routinely perform 
volumetric flow rate measurements, after negotiation with the EPA, a 
determination was made that a frequency of every 30 months was 
sufficient, as documented in a 2009 consent decree resolving a federal 
enforcement action against the company. The commenter asserted that 
volumetric flow rate measurement is a costly procedure, performed by 
outside contractors costing about $2,000 a day, and cost per inspection 
will vary by the number of systems to be checked. The commenter noted 
that for the commenter's facilities, approximately fifty rechecks have 
been performed to comply with the requirements of the consent decree or 
due to new stack testing. The commenter stated that all have 
demonstrated that each system is operating in accordance with the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.1506(c). According to the commenter, this 
shows that there is no need to conduct this flow measurement more than 
once every 30 months. The commenter objected to the requirement to 
perform volumetric flow measurements on each hood. The commenter stated 
that when multiple hoods are manifolded together, it is not always 
possible to meet Method 1 requirements on all hoods to be measured, and 
at times it is necessary to measure the main trunk and arrive at the 
volumetric flow rate for an individual hood by calculation. According 
to the commenter, this method has been used repeatedly and submitted to 
the EPA and state agencies with stack test reports, and has been 
accepted. The commenter requested that the EPA clarify that the 
proposed language does not preclude this approach, or modify the 
proposed language to include such clarification.
    Response: Verification of the flow rate of the exhaust stream that 
is directed to the control device is necessary to assure the efficiency 
of the control system and to ensure continuous compliance with the 
emission standards between performance tests. In addition, owners or 
operators of area source facilities are not required to conduct 
periodic performance tests and this requirement may help detect leaks 
and defects in the duct work sooner than they otherwise would be found. 
The EPA is adopting the requirements as proposed in the 2012 and 2014 
proposals, including options that provide flexibility in how affected 
sources can verify their flow rates.
    Instead of annual Methods 1 and 2 testing, flow rate measurements 
using EPA Methods 1 and 2 can be performed once every 5 years, provided 
that a flow rate indicator consisting of a pitot tube and differential 
pressure gauge is installed and used to record daily the differential 
pressure, that the differential pressure is maintained at or above 90 
percent of the pressure differential measured during the most recent 
Method 2 performance test series, and that the flow rate indicator is 
inspected annually. As another option to annual flow rate measurements 
using Methods 1 and 2, the EPA is allowing Methods 1 and 2 to be 
performed every 5 years provided that daily measurements of the capture 
and collection system's fan RPM are made, that the readings are 
recorded daily, and that the RPM are maintained at or above 90 percent 
of the RPM measured during the most recent Method 2 performance test 
series. Other options for annual flow rate measurements using Methods 1 
and 2 that we are allowing are annual measurements of the face velocity 
of booth-type hoods, or installation of static pressure measurement in 
the duct at the hood exit, provided that the values obtained for these 
measurements are at or above 90 percent of the values measured during 
the most recent Method 2 performance test series. Further, we are 
allowing that as an alternative to the flow rate measurements using 
Methods 1 and 2, the annual hood inspection requirements can be 
satisfied by conducting annual verification of a permanent total 
enclosure using EPA Method 204.
    We are further allowing that, as an alternative to the annual 
verification of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204, 
verification can be performed once every 5 years if negative pressure 
in the enclosure is directly monitored by a pressure indicator and 
readings are recorded daily or the system is interlocked to halt 
material feed should the system not operate under negative pressure. We 
are also requiring that readings outside a specified range be 
investigated and steps taken to restore normal operation, and that 
pressure indicators would need to be inspected annually for damage and 
operability. We are also allowing non-pitot based flow rate measuring 
equipment (i.e., hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 
pressure differential sensor, venturi pressure differential monitoring 
or orifice plate) equipped with an associated thermocouple and 
automated data logging software and associated hardware as a sufficient 
monitoring system for compliance with this rule.
    The 2009 Consent Decree at paragraph 122 states clearly that each 
company is responsible for achieving and maintaining complete 
compliance with all applicable federal laws and

[[Page 56731]]

regulations, and compliance with the Consent Decree does not 
necessarily mean compliance with the Clean Air Act or implementing 
regulations. Further, the Consent Decree does not limit the EPA's 
authority to revise subpart RRR.
    The commenters assert that annual measurements of flow rates will 
result in additional costs to conduct EPA Methods 1 and 2 testing. 
Because in EPA's view the existing requirements prior to this 
rulemaking required annual testing, we disagree that these costs 
represent a new burden. See Memorandum, Michael Alushin, EPA Office of 
Compliance Enforcement Assurance, to EPA Regional Air Directors, 
``Compliance with ACGIH Ventilation Manual,'' August 16, 2006, which is 
in this rulemaking docket.
    Comment: In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated that in the supplemental proposal, the EPA would allow several 
alternatives to an annual Methods 1 and 2 flow rate measurement 
including the option to verify a permanent total enclosure every five 
years and directly monitor negative pressure, which they support. The 
commenter stated that there appears to be an inconsistency in proposed 
sections 63.1506(c) and 63.1510(d). The commenter stated that 40 CFR 
63.1506(c)(1) requires capture and collection systems to meet 
``engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates'' from the ACGIH 
Manuals, but the supplemental proposal allows an operator to ensure 
compliance with 40 CFR 63.1506(c) by verifying a permanent total 
enclosure by Method 204, which verifies the facial velocity and that an 
inward flow is maintained at all openings, but does not include a 
measurement of exhaust rates. The commenter stated that the ACGIH 
Manuals do not provide minimum exhaust rates for all types of capture 
and collection systems used by the secondary aluminum industry; for 
example, some capture and collection systems are not typical 
ventilation hoods and are more appropriately described in the ACGIH 
Manuals as ``Moderate Control Total Enclosures'' and, for these 
systems, the manual does not provide minimum exhaust rates, but rather 
describes appropriate velocities to maintain through openings in the 
enclosure. The commenter stated that to the extent the manuals are 
referenced in the final rule, the EPA should revise 40 CFR 63.1506 to 
remove the reference to ``minimum exhaust rates'' and require the 
system to be designed and monitored to meet ``applicable engineering 
standards'' as follows:
    ``Design and install a system for the capture and collection of 
emissions to meet the applicable engineering standards for minimum 
exhaust rates as published by the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists in Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice 23rd or 27th edition (ACGIH Guidelines) 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.1502 of this subpart).''
    Response: Because the ACGIH guidelines also contain inlet 
velocities as pointed out by the commenter, 40 CFR 63.1506(c)(1) of the 
final rule now reads ``Design and install a system for the capture and 
collection of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum 
exhaust rates or inlet facial velocities as contained in the ACGIH 
Guidelines.''
    Comment: In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated that they concur with the flexibility that the EPA provides in 
40 CFR 63.1510(d)(2)(ii) and (iii) to allow 5-year flow rate testing 
measurements to supplant the annual testing requirement, if a pitot 
tube and differential pressure gauge are installed and monitored in the 
hooding (ii), or if fan RPM's are tracked and recorded (iii). The 
commenter stated that, however, based on real world experience with the 
flow verification of permanently installed hooding devices, there are 
other options that should also be included that would provide the same 
level of protectiveness; two options are:
    Option 1. Install a pressure tap in the duct just above the hood 
exit point, and monitor pressure similar to the pitot tube. The 
commenter stated that this is simpler than a pitot tube installation, 
less prone to clogging, and has been effectively used at an existing 
location. According to the commenter, the signal will equal pressure 
loss in the hood entrance plus velocity pressure in the duct, and 
generally be proportional to the velocity in the duct squared. The 
commenter stated that at 3,000 ft/min duct velocity it will be similar 
to the pitot tube at approximately 0.70 inches water gauge, that 
calibration of differential pressure readings can be done by EPA 
Methods 1 and 2 flow testing, and that it is easier to install in a 
duct since no straight run is required.
    Option 2. If the hood has a straight face (i.e., booth type), face 
velocity measurements could be made over the face of the hood and 
averaged to determine velocity. Measured face velocity could be 
compared to calculated data vs. EPA Methods 1 and 2 on a 5-year 
frequency. The commenter provided the following comments on this 
option:
     No negative flow points should be observed, since this 
will allow smoke to escape the hood.
     This will not work for canopy or irregularly shaped hoods.
     Low velocities require an appropriate measurement device.
     Cannot be done while material is being loaded into hood.
    The commenter requested that new paragraphs (iv) and (v) be added 
to 40 CFR 63.1510(d)(2) for the inclusion of options 1 and 2 above.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter objected 
to the EPA's supplemental proposal to the extent that it only provides 
two methods to measure flow to avoid annual inspection for permanently 
installed capture, collection, and transport systems (i.e., hoods). The 
commenter stated that Table 3 of the supplemental proposal allows a 
source to delay annual inspections for capture devices to once every 5 
years, if the source monitors flow through daily pressure differential 
measurements or fan RPM measurements. The commenter stated that they 
support the recommendations and rationale of the Aluminum Association 
(TAA) to include additional flow monitoring alternatives to avoid 
annual inspections, including installation of a pressure tube above 
hood exit points, face velocity measurements (for straight face (booth 
type) hoods) and by direct observation of smoke in the hood by a method 
22 or similar test. The commenter stated that by including additional 
flow-monitoring alternatives, the EPA would allow sources the option to 
pick the most reliable and least burdensome flow monitoring method that 
fits the type of hood used to capture emissions at the source.
    In a comment on the supplemental proposal, one commenter stated 
that the alternative to the annual capture/collection and closed vent 
system inspection requirements at 40 CFR 63.1510(d)(2)(ii) is 
unreasonably restrictive and should not be limited to using 
conventional pitot tube and a differential pressure gauge equipment to 
qualify for the once in 5 year alternative. The commenter recommended 
that the EPA further amend 63.1510(d)(2) to permit the use of non-pitot 
based flow measuring equipment and to permit volumetric flow 
measurements to be automated using available software and hardware.
    Response: The proposed alternatives of annual measurements of face 
velocity for straight face (booth-type) hoods using a hot-wire 
anemometer, or installation of a pressure tap in the duct just 
downstream of the hood exit point,

[[Page 56732]]

and monitoring pressure, as suggested by the commenters, are 
acceptable. We also agree that non-pitot based flow rate measuring 
equipment (i.e., hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 
pressure differential sensor, venturi pressure differential monitoring 
or orifice plate) equipped with an associated thermocouple and 
automated data logging software and associated hardware is a sufficient 
monitoring system for compliance with this rule. We are modifying the 
rule language to accommodate these monitoring options.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for flow rate 
measurements and annual inspections of capture/collection systems?
    Based on the rationale presented in the preamble to the 2012 
proposed rule, the final rule codifies in subpart RRR our 
interpretation that annual inspections of capture and collection 
systems include flow rate measurements using EPA Reference Methods 1 
and 2 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. However, based on the public 
comments regarding additional flow measurement technologies and our 
responses to those comments presented in the previous section of this 
preamble, the final rule also includes additional options that provide 
more flexibility in how affected sources can verify the efficiency of 
their capture/collection system.

F. Compliance Dates

1. What compliance dates did we propose?
    In the 2012 proposal, the EPA proposed that owners or operators of 
existing affected sources comply with the proposed amendments within 90 
days of the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 
Commenters stated that the proposed 90-day compliance deadline was 
insufficient for sources to comply with certain provisions. They 
maintained that the rule changes would require operational planning, 
maintenance planning, reprogramming of data acquisition systems, design 
and installation of hooding equipment and/or negotiations with 
permitting authorities to gain performance test plan approvals (with 
provisions to minimize fugitive emissions during testing in place of 
capture hoods). They pointed out that facilities that choose to design 
and install capture hoods for performance testing will need time to 
design and complete these installations, conduct initial performance 
testing and modify their operations, charge materials and/or products 
to ensure compliance. Some rule changes, furnace classification 
changes, HF testing and testing uncontrolled furnaces for example, 
would require revisions to OM&M plans as well as to permits to include 
newly established operating parameters in cases where changes to 
furnace classifications are made. Commenters stated that compliance 
with HF emission standards that may affect choice of flux materials, 
daily calculation of HF emissions and compliance with SAPU limit that 
will require reprogramming of data systems to include HF and/or 
fluoride containing flux composition data would also require time to be 
researched, selected, purchased, financed and installed. Commenters 
suggested compliance deadlines ranging from 2 to 3 years.
    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA agreed with commenters 
that the proposed 90-day compliance deadline was insufficient for 
sources to comply with certain proposed provisions and proposed 
extended compliance periods. The EPA proposed a 180-day compliance 
period for the revisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(d). For the 
amendments to include HF emissions (in 40 CFR 63.1505(i)(4) and 
(k)(2)), the testing of existing uncontrolled furnaces (Sec. Sec.  
63.1512(e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6) and (e)(7)), and changing furnace 
classification (40 CFR 63.1514), the EPA proposed a compliance date of 
2 years after promulgation.
2. What compliance dates changed since proposal?
    As noted above, we adjusted some compliance dates in our 
supplemental proposal. We received no comments or information following 
the supplemental proposal that warranted any changes to the compliance 
dates proposed in the supplemental proposal. As proposed, compliance 
with the provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(d) is required 180 days 
following publication of the final rule while compliance with the 
provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(e) is required 2 years following 
publication of the final rule.
3. What key comments did we receive related to compliance dates?
    Comment: One commenter on the 2012 proposal agreed with the 180 day 
time period for startup for new sources' initial performance tests. 
However, the commenter stated that due to the integration of modern 
facilities, running a regulated unit at full capacity may be affected 
or constrained by downstream equipment, market constraints or other 
technical issues beyond the control of the facility. The commenter 
stated that the current provisions provide relief only through the 
administrative order process, which is costly and arduous. The 
commenter requested that the EPA include a provision to petition for an 
extension of the deadline if a test is not feasible within the allowed 
time period to allow time for the facility to reach full capacity.
    Response: As proposed in the supplemental proposal, the final 
amendments increase the time period for initial compliance testing for 
a new source from 90 days to 180 days. The commenter did not provide 
data or other specific documentation to support a conclusion that an 
affected source cannot reach full capacity within 180 days of startup.
    Comment: Two commenters on the 2012 proposal asked the EPA to 
clarify in the rule that the new HF requirements are not effective 
until ``the next scheduled performance test after the effective date of 
the final rule.'' The commenters observed that in the proposal preamble 
the HF testing requirement, and presumably the HF limit, was said to 
become effective ``at the next scheduled performance test after the 
effective date of the final rule.'' The commenters noted that the 
regulatory language does not make this clear, as 40 CFR 63.1501 states 
that owners or operators must comply with the HF limit and the HF 
testing requirement within 90 days after promulgation.
    In comments on the supplemental proposal, two commenters requested 
that the EPA clarify that the intent of the proposed language is to not 
require testing for HF on existing major source uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces within 2 years of the final rule publication date but at the 
next scheduled 5 year required stack test following publication of the 
final rule.
    One commenter on the 2014 supplemental proposal stated that they 
interpret the proposed language of 40 CFR 63.1501(e) to indicate that 
the effective date of the new HF standard and the new requirements for 
testing existing uncontrolled group 1 furnaces is 2 years from final 
rule promulgation and that they further understand that testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the newly effective provisions can be done 
on a timeline consistent with the existing 5-year performance testing 
cycle established using the existing 40 CFR 63.1511(e) provision such 
that the compliance demonstration is made at the next scheduled 
performance test after the effective date of the final rule. The 
commenter stated that this is true even if the next scheduled 
performance test on the normal 5-year testing cycle is outside the 2-
year compliance

[[Page 56733]]

window. The commenter provided an example to illustrate their 
interpretation of the compliance date requirements.
    Two commenters suggested the following revision to 40 CFR 
63.1512(e)(4):
    ``When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 
operator must comply with the requirements of either paragraph 
(e)(4)(i) or paragraph (ii) of this section at the next performance 
test required by 40 CFR 63.1511(e).''
    The commenters also requested clarification of when HF emissions 
must be included in SAPU calculations. According to the commenters, 
furnaces at some facilities are on different testing schedules, which 
mean that some furnaces will become subject to the HF limit and HF SAPU 
calculation before others. The commenters assumed each furnace would be 
added to the HF SAPU calculation when tested, but the commenters 
requested that the EPA clarify this in the final rule.
    Response: Although the final rule is effective upon promulgation 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(10), the commenters are correct that the 
final rule requires HF testing at the next scheduled performance test 
if the test occurs 2 years or more after the final rule is published in 
the Federal Register. We clarified in the final rule that the HF 
requirements apply to the next scheduled performance test if the next 
scheduled performance test occurs 2 years or more after the final rule 
is published in the Federal Register. The final rule also clearly 
provides that each furnace will be added to the HF SAPU calculation 
following the initial performance test for HF for the furnace, or for a 
representative furnace tested, to determine HF emissions from the 
furnace.
    Comment: Several commenters on the 2012 proposal disagreed with the 
proposed ninety-day compliance date. Two commenters stated that 
requiring compliance only 90 days after promulgation is unnecessary and 
does not provide sufficient time. One commenter suggested that due to 
engineering and management constraints, the period be extended to 180 
days, which would allow the industry to make necessary changes. The 
commenter noted potential component lead-times and permitting 
procedures outside of the control of operators. Another commenter 
recommended 2 to 3 years for compliance, assuming the EPA promulgates 
corrections and clarifications that require a compliance window.
    Two commenters on the 2012 proposal maintained the rule changes 
will require operational planning, maintenance planning, reprogramming 
of data acquisition systems, design and installation of hooding 
equipment and/or negotiations with permitting authorities to gain 
performance test plan approvals (with provisions to minimize fugitive 
emissions during testing in place of capture hoods). One commenter 
stated that facilities that choose to design and install capture hoods 
for performance testing will need time to design and complete these 
installations, conduct initial performance testing and modify their 
operations, charge materials and/or products to ensure compliance.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal stated that some facilities will 
also need to prepare and submit revised OM&M plans that incorporate 
changes related to bag leak detector maintenance, lime feeder 
calibrations, metal liquid depth monitoring and/or procedures for 
changing furnace classifications. The commenter noted that under the 
proposed rule, these revised OM&M plans could not be implemented until 
60 days after submittal to the permitting authority, meaning that 
companies would effectively have only 30 days to define their 
compliance approach and submit revised OM&M plans. The commenter 
concluded that this 90-day compliance timeline is neither practicable 
nor reasonable.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal recommended a minimum of one 
year to implement the controls and reporting requirements. The 
commenter stated that any new technology requirements or installation 
of new or modification of existing emission controls would impose added 
costs, and 90 days did not provide an adequate opportunity for 
additions to be researched, selected, purchased, financed, and 
installed. The commenter also stated that the Subpart ZZZZZZ rule 
allowed two years and that would be preferable, but a period of no less 
than twelve months would be fair and acceptable. The commenter also 
suggested the same delay should apply to the development and filing of 
a written OM&M plan.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal stated that the following 
provisions cannot be met within 90 days due to the possible need for 
ductwork revisions and further stack testing: Sec. Sec.  63.1505(a), 
63.1505(i)(4), 63.1505(k), 63.1510(b), 63.1510(d)(2), 
63.1510(o)(l)(ii), 63.1512(e)(l), 63.1512(e)(2), and 63.1512(e)(4). The 
commenter stated it is not reasonable to begin work on these provisions 
immediately since they will be subject to further comment and hopefully 
significant revision in the final rule.
    Two commenters on the 2012 proposal requested a 3-year compliance 
timeline for the provisions that result in changes in operations and/or 
operation practices, or impact control technology and monitoring 
requirements at existing sources. One commenter stated that a 3-year 
compliance date would allow smaller producers opportunity to budget for 
large capital and resource costs. The commenters suggested a 3-year 
compliance date for the following provisions:
     Sec.  63.1505(a)(1), emission limits applicable to SSM 
periods;
     Sec.  63.1505(i)(4), compliance with HF emission standards 
that may affect choice of flux materials;
     Sec.  63.1505(k)(2), daily calculation of HF emissions and 
compliance with SAPU limit that will require reprogramming of data 
systems to include HF and/or fluoride containing flux composition data;
     Sec.  63.1510(b)(5), procedures in OM&M plan for process 
and control device parameters that require addition of lime injection 
rates that may require new or modified equipment to determine rates or 
calibrate lime mass feed rate and will require lime injection rate to 
be established during next scheduled performance test; 63.1510(b)(5), 
requirements and scope for capture/collection system inspections on 
controlled emission units;
     Sec.  63.1510(i)(4), monthly lime injection rate 
verification that may require new or modified equipment to allow 
verification of lime mass feed rate;
     Sec.  63.1510(j)(4), recordkeeping (and associated 
training of operating personnel) for solid flux added intermittently;
     Sec.  63.1510(n)(1), monitoring molten metal level of 
sidewell furnaces that will require selection, purchase, installation, 
testing and maintenance procedures for new equipment;
     Sec.  63.1512(e)(1) and (e)(4), deletes ``furnace exhaust 
outlet'' as compliance basis and imposes new compliance demonstration 
requirements for uncontrolled furnaces based on temporary capture 
hoods, reduced emission limit equal to 67 percent of the existing 
standard or procedures to minimize fugitive emissions during testing 
negotiated with permitting authority;
     Sec.  63.1512(p)(2), record lime injection rates during 
the three test runs that will require lime injection rate to be 
established during next scheduled performance test; some existing 
systems do not have a viable means for weighing

[[Page 56734]]

mass rate of lime being injected and new or modified equipment will be 
required;
     Sec.  63.1513(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), co-controlled 
units added to SAPU calculation that may require revision of OM&M plan 
and reprogramming of data systems used to track and record SAPU 
calculations; and
     Sec.  63.1514, requirements for changing furnace 
classifications which differ from those in current Title V permits, and 
will need revision after owners and operators establish compliance 
conditions and gather performance data.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal suggested that the effective 
date for the revised 40 CFR 63.1511(b)(1) language would need to be 
``at the next required performance test.'' The commenter asserted that 
the proposed provision changes the required test conditions for some 
operations and could not be met by the proposed effective date of 90 
days.
    One commenter on the 2012 proposal asserted that the EPA is not 
required to impose the 90-day compliance period on area sources because 
promulgation of section 112(f) standards is not required based on the 
EPA's findings that the MIR for secondary aluminum area sources, based 
on actual emissions, was 0.4-in-1 million. The commenter stated that 
the EPA may grant up to a 3-year compliance deadline for area sources. 
The commenter contended that, as a practical matter, the EPA should 
provide a compliance period for area sources commensurate with the 
several new administrative requirements for which more than 90 days are 
required to achieve implementation. The commenter stated that, due to 
the revisions required for facility operations and the time constraints 
for revision and approval of an OM&M plan, the EPA should grant at 
least a 1-year compliance period. The commenter described potential 
time constraints.
    In a comment on the 2014 supplemental proposal, one commenter 
stated that compliance deadlines for new standards developed under the 
section 112 program must be set for a date that is as expeditious as 
practicable, but no later than 3 years after rule implementation. The 
commenter stated that the EPA is not required to impose the 180-day 
compliance period on area sources because promulgation of section 
112(f) standards is not required when the residual cancer risk under 
the existing MACT standards are not equal to or greater than 1-in-1 
million. The commenter stated that because of the low MIR from area 
sources (0.6-in-1 million), the EPA was not required to promulgate 
standards under 112(f); accordingly, the EPA may grant up to a three-
year compliance deadline for area sources. The commenter stated that 
the EPA should provide a compliance period for area sources that is 
commensurate with the several new administrative and monitoring 
requirements for which more than 180 days are required to achieve full 
implementation. The commenter provided the following example to 
illustrate the need for a longer compliance period: Additional 
monitoring requirements for capture and collection systems proposed in 
40 CFR 63.1510(d)(2) may require installation of flow rate or pressure 
monitoring equipment; these changes, and others proposed in the 2012 
proposal, may require submittal of a revised OM&M plan to the 
permitting authority; among the revisions to the OM&M plan under the 
2012 proposal are new requirements for the inspection of capture and 
collection systems and additional performance testing requirements; the 
owner or operator may not begin operating under this revised OM&M plan 
until approval is received from the permitting authority, or 60 days, 
whichever is sooner. The commenter stated that, even to the extent that 
the 2012 proposal provides for default approval of OM&M plans after 60 
days, this only leaves the source with 120 days to install monitoring 
equipment and implement the plan; this time frame is inappropriate. The 
commenter stated that, due to the revisions required for facility 
operations and the time restraints for revision and approval of an OM&M 
plan, the EPA should grant at least a 1-year compliance period.
    Response: As discussed in the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA 
agrees with the commenters on the 2012 proposal that the proposed 90-
day compliance deadline is insufficient for sources to comply with 
certain provisions of the final rule and is finalizing extended 
compliance periods. The final compliance dates are the same as those 
proposed in the 2014 supplemental proposal, on which we received only 
one comment. As these amendments clarify existing requirements, and 
based on the lack of supporting information for the commenter's 
conclusory assertion that 2 years is insufficient, we do not agree that 
any of the revisions warrant an extension beyond 2 years to a 3-year 
compliance period. Regarding the commenter's concern that small 
producers would need 2 to 3 years to budget for large capital and 
resource costs, we determined in our economic and small business 
analysis (see section VI.C of this action) that 28 entities will incur 
costs associated with this rule and, of the 28 entities, nine of them 
are small based on the definition of the Small Business Administration. 
Of these nine small businesses, all are estimated to experience a 
negative cost (i.e., a cost savings) as a result of the final rule. 
Therefore, we do not agree that more than a 2-year compliance period is 
necessary.
    As a result of comments on the 2012 proposal, the final rule does 
not contain the 60-day approval period for OM&M plans. Therefore, the 
industry will have the full 180 days for compliance rather than a 120-
day compliance period as was a concern of one commenter. The final rule 
retains the 2-year compliance period for those requirements listed in 
40 CFR 63.1501(e). The final rule does not change the requirement that 
existing major sources conduct performance tests every 5 years.
    The EPA disagrees that additional time is needed to comply with the 
changes related to SSM. The Court issued a decision on December 19, 
2008, to vacate SSM provisions in the General Provisions. Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The EPA issued a letter on July 
22, 2009, addressing the impact of the decision. The court mandate 
implementing the Sierra Club decision was issued on October 16, 2009, 
at which time the SSM provisions were clearly no longer in effect. As 
explained in the July 2009 memo, SSM provisions in specific subparts, 
such as those in Subpart RRR, were directly affected by the court 
decision. In addition, amendments to Subpart RRR were proposed on 
February 14, 2012, at which time secondary aluminum facilities were put 
on notice of the specific amendments to Subpart RRR in response to the 
Court's vacatur of the SSM provisions. Thus, facilities have had ample 
notice that the EPA would make the SSM rule changes. As a result, the 
SSM-related rule changes are effective upon promulgation of the final 
rule. See also discussion in section III.C of this preamble.
    Comment: Two commenters on the 2012 proposal requested changes to 
the new hooding requirement in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4), requiring 
compliance ``at the next required performance test'' even if the test 
must be performed ``90 days from promulgation of the final rule'' 
[Sec.  63.1501(d)]. The commenters explained that this compliance 
deadline may be acceptable for facilities that are not required to 
conduct performance testing in the first few years following

[[Page 56735]]

promulgation of the final rule, but other facilities are on a testing 
cycle that would require testing soon after promulgation and these 
facilities may not have time to install hoods and/or modify operating 
practices within the allotted 90 days. The commenters stated that 
according to the NESHAP General Provisions, test protocols must be 
submitted 60 days before a compliance test, so facilities required to 
test early in 2013 would have as little as 30 days after the final rule 
to address the new hooding requirements and other requirements of the 
final rule before submitting a test plan. The commenters did not 
believe that this timeline is practicable or reasonable. The commenters 
requested the EPA to revise the compliance date for capture hoods on 
uncontrolled furnaces (in Sec.  63.1512 (e)(4)) to say: ``three years 
after the final promulgation date or at the next required performance 
test, whichever date is later.''
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the time 
available for owners or operators of facilities with performance 
testing required under 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4) and occurring near the 
proposed 90-day compliance deadline would be insufficient. As described 
above, in the final rule the requirement to account for unmeasured 
emissions during uncontrolled group 1 furnace performance testing 
applies to testing beginning 2 years after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, a source with their next 
required performance test of an uncontrolled group 1 furnace occurring 
at least 2 years after promulgation would have to comply with the 
testing provisions in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4). A source with their next 
required performance test of an uncontrolled group 1 furnace occurring 
1 year (or any period less than 2 years) after promulgation would not 
be required to do so until the subsequent performance test. As these 
amendments clarify existing requirements, and based on the lack of 
supporting information for the commenter's conclusory assertion that 2 
years is insufficient, we do not agree that any of the revisions 
warrant an extension beyond 2 years to a 3-year compliance period.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach related to compliance 
dates?
    The rationale for the compliance dates is provided in the preamble 
to the supplemental proposal and is re-iterated in the responses to 
comments in the previous section of this preamble. The final rule 
specifies the compliance dates for the new requirements. Compliance 
with the provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(d) is required 180 days 
following publication of the final rule. Rule changes specified in 
Sec.  63.1501(e)--furnace classification changes, HF testing and 
testing uncontrolled furnaces--require more time, and the final rule 
provides 2 years following publication of the final rule for 
compliance.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that there are 161 secondary aluminum production 
facilities that will be affected by this final rule. We performed risk 
modeling for 155 of these sources (52 of the 53 major sources and 103 
of the 108 area sources). Six facilities that are subject to the 
Secondary Aluminum NESHAP were not included in the risk assessment 
input modeling files. The facilities that were not included in the risk 
assessment input files included one major HAP source and five area HAP 
sources. The major HAP source was not included because the secondary 
aluminum equipment at the source consists of group 2 furnaces, for 
which the EPA did not have HAP emissions estimates. The five area 
sources were not included because they had no equipment subject to D/F 
emission standards, which are the only standards in the NESHAP 
applicable to area sources. We estimate that nine secondary aluminum 
facilities have co-located primary aluminum operations. The affected 
sources at secondary aluminum production facilities include new and 
existing scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryer/delacquering 
kiln/decoating kilns, group 2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross-only 
furnaces, rotary dross cooler and secondary aluminum processing units 
containing group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The RTR analysis conducted for this rule does not support 
increasing the stringency of the numerical emissions limits. This final 
rule clarifies how uncontrolled furnaces are to conduct emissions 
testing, revises the monitoring requirements for annual inspection of 
capture/collection systems and makes other changes that correct and 
clarify rule requirements and provisions. These final amendments are 
not expected to achieve appreciable reductions in emissions, although 
the final requirements for testing uncontrolled furnaces could result 
in some unquantifiable emission reduction. Therefore, no quantifiable 
air quality impacts are expected. However, these final amendments will 
help to improve compliance, monitoring and implementation of the rule.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The total cost of the final amendments are the same as we described 
in the supplemental proposal. We conservatively estimate the total cost 
of the final amendments to be $1,711,000 per year (in 2011 dollars). 
However, depending on assumptions used for the costs for installing 
temporary hooding for uncontrolled furnaces, the estimate of total 
annualized costs could range from $611,000 to $2,871,000 per year. Our 
estimate for the source category includes an annualized cost of 
$1,200,000 to $3,460,000 for installing hooding that meets ACGIH 
guidelines for testing uncontrolled furnaces, assuming that 107 
furnaces choose that option (rather than assuming an 80-percent capture 
efficiency for their existing furnace exhaust system). We believe that 
a number of these 107 furnaces will choose to apply the 80-percent 
assumption rather than install temporary hooding. Our estimates do not 
include deductions for the exclusion of existing round top furnaces as 
provided in the final rule. Therefore, these total cost estimates are 
considered conservative (more likely to be overestimates rather than 
underestimates) of the total costs to the industry. Our estimates of 
total costs also include an annualized cost of $11,000 for testing for 
HF on uncontrolled furnaces that are already testing for HCl. Finally, 
we estimate cost savings of $600,000 per year for furnaces that change 
furnace operating modes and turn off their control devices. Our 
estimate of savings is based on 50 furnaces turning off their controls 
for approximately 6 months every year. This savings reflects the cost 
of testing (to demonstrate these furnaces remain in compliance with 
emission limits) minus the savings realized from operating with the 
control devices turned off.
    We estimate that 57 facilities will be affected and that the cost 
per facility ranges from negative $36,000 (a cost savings) per year for 
a facility changing furnace operating modes to $216,500 per year for a 
facility installing hooding for testing.
    The estimated costs are explained further in the document titled, 
Cost Estimate for Rule Changes to Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, which is 
available in the docket for this action.

[[Page 56736]]

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed an economic impact analysis for the amendments in this 
final rule. This analysis estimates impacts based on using annualized 
cost-to-sales ratios for affected firms. For the 28 parent firms 
affected by this final rule, the cost-to-sales estimate for each parent 
firm is less than 0.1 percent. For more information, please refer to 
the document titled, Economic Impact Analysis for the Secondary 
Aluminum Supplemental Proposal, which is available in the docket.

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result of these final amendments. However, we think that they will 
help to improve the clarity of the rule, which can improve compliance 
and minimize emissions. Certain provisions also provide operational 
flexibility with no increase in HAP emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    We did not conduct an assessment of risks to individual demographic 
groups for this rulemaking. However, we did conduct a proximity 
analysis for both area and major sources, which identifies any 
overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous populations 
near facilities in the source category. The results of the proximity 
analyses suggested there are a higher percentage of minorities, people 
with low income, and people without a high school diploma living near 
these facilities (i.e., within 3 miles) compared to the national 
averages for these subpopulations. However, the risks due to HAP 
emissions from this source category are low for all populations (e.g., 
inhalation cancer risks are less than 1-in-1 million for all 
populations and non-cancer HIs are less than 1). We note that we do not 
expect this final rule to achieve reductions in HAP emissions. We 
conclude that this rule will not have disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided 
to human health or the environment. However, the final rule will 
provide additional benefits to these and all demographic groups by 
improving the compliance, monitoring and implementation of the NESHAP.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the 
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children. The risk assessment 
report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
Source Category in Support of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, which is available in the docket, estimated that no one is 
exposed to an inhalation cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or a 
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than one due to emissions from the 
source category. The 2015 Environmental Justice Screening Report for 
Secondary Aluminum Major Sources and the 2015 Environmental Justice 
Screening Report for Secondary Aluminum Area Sources, also available in 
the docket, indicate the percentages for all demographic groups exposed 
to various risk levels, including children, are similar to their 
respective nationwide percentages. All groups are exposed to cancer 
risks below 1-in-1 million and HIs less than 1 due to inhalation 
exposure to HAP emissions from this source category.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    We are establishing new paperwork requirements for the Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category to improve enforcement of and 
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. The new requirements are 
in the form of recordkeeping and reporting for furnace classification 
changes and recordkeeping with regard to verification of lime injection 
rates. New monitoring requirements include testing for HF, and testing 
related to furnace classification changes. The information requirements 
are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which 
generally apply to all operators subject to Part 63 national emissions 
standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B.
    We estimate 161 regulated entities are currently subject to Subpart 
RRR. The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the rule) for these amendments to Subpart RRR is estimated to be 
$2,990,000 per year. This includes 1,694 labor hours per year at a 
total labor cost of $162,000 per year, and total non-labor capital and 
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $2,828,000 per year. The total 
burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years 
after the effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 271 labor 
hours per year at an annual cost of $12,231. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR 
is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses. We determined in the economic and small business analysis 
that, using the results from the cost memorandum, 28 entities will 
incur costs associated with the final rule. Of these 28 entities, nine 
of them are small. Of these nine, all of them are estimated to 
experience a negative cost (i.e., a cost savings) as a result of the 
final rule according to our analysis. For more information, please 
refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for the Secondary Aluminum 
Supplemental

[[Page 56737]]

Proposal, which is available in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. There are no secondary aluminum production 
facilities owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Aluminum Production 
Source Category in Support of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action, and are 
discussed in section V.G of this preamble.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This final action involves technical standards. The EPA decided to 
allow the use of ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method for Determining 
the Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved 
December 1, 2013, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 to meet 
opacity measurement requirements and is incorporated by reference. The 
alternative ASTM method determines the opacity of a plume using digital 
imagery and associated hardware and software. The standard is available 
from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or 
at their Web site, http://www.astm.org.
    Under the original 2000 subpart RRR, the EPA already allows the use 
of EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 23, 25A and 26A of 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A. As a result of comments received on the 2012 proposal, EPA 
Method 26 was identified as a reasonable alternative to EPA Method 26A 
and EPA Method 204 was identified as a reasonable alternative method 
for EPA Methods 1 and 2. Method 26A is applicable for determining 
emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens from stationary sources. 
This method collects the emission sample isokinetically and is 
therefore particularly suited for sampling at sources, such as those 
controlled by wet scrubbers, emitting acid particulate matter. Method 
204 is used to determine whether a permanent or temporary enclosure 
meets the criteria for a total enclosure. In this method, an enclosure 
is evaluated against a set of criteria, which, if met and all the 
exhaust gases from the enclosure are ducted to a control device, the 
capture efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent. The EPA agrees that 
EPA Methods 26 and 204 are acceptable alternatives for use in this 
rule. These methods are existing EPA test methods and are not voluntary 
consensus standards under NTTAA.
    EPA-625/3-89-016, Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks 
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update, March 1989, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, is a procedure for assessing the risks 
associated with exposures to complex mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurnas and relates the toxicity of the 210 
structurally related chemical pollutants and is based on a limited data 
base of in vivo and in vitro toxicity testing. This method is 
incorporated by reference. The method is available from the National 
Technical Information Service, 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312, 
or at their Web site, http://www.ntis.gov.
    For the design and installation of capture and collection systems, 
the EPA decided to allow the use of American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition, 2010 as an alternative 
to Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd 
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5, 
``Exhaust System Design Procedure.'' The manuals present information on 
design, maintenance and evaluation of industrial exhaust ventilation 
systems. The manuals are available from ACGIH, Customer Service 
Department, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45240, telephone 
number (513) 742-2020.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in this final rule.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed 
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, 
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. This final rule 
will not relax the emission limits on regulated sources and will not 
result in emissions increases. The results of this evaluation are 
contained in sections III.A, IV.A and V.F and V.G of this preamble.
    Because our residual risk assessment determined that there was 
minimal residual risk associated with the emissions from facilities in 
this source category, a demographic risk analysis was not necessary for 
this category. However, the EPA did conduct a proximity analysis for 
both area and major sources. The results of these analyses are 
summarized in section IV.A of this preamble and in more detail in the 
EJ Screening Report for Area Sources and the EJ Screening Report for 
Major Sources, which are available in the docket for this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United

[[Page 56738]]

States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: August 14, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (r) as (c) through (s);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(87);
0
d. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (m)(3) through (m)(20) 
as (m)(4) through (m)(21); and
0
e. Adding new paragraph (m)(3).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH), Customer Service Department, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45240, telephone number (513) 742-2020.
    (1) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd 
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5, 
``Exhaust System Design Procedure.'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to 
Subpart RRR, and Appendix A to Subpart RRR.
    (2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for 
Design, 27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1503, 
63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart RRR, 
and Appendix A to Subpart RRR.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (87) ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved December 
1, 2013. IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1510(f), 63.1511(d), 
63.1512(a), 63.1517(b) and 63.1625(b).
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (3) EPA-625/3-89-016, Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks 
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update, March 1989. IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.1513(d).
* * * * *

Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

0
3. Revise Sec.  63.1501 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1501  Dates.

    (a) An affected source constructed before February 11, 1999, must 
comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003, except 
as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c).
    (b) The owner or operator of an affected source constructed before 
February 14, 2012, must comply with the following requirements of this 
subpart by March 16, 2016: Sec.  63.1505(k) introductory text, (k)(1) 
through (k)(5), other than the emission standards for HF in (k)(2); 
Sec.  63.1506 (a)(1), (c)(1), (g)(5), (k)(3), (m)(4), (m)(7), (n)(1); 
Sec.  63.1510 (b)(5), (b)(9), (d)(2), (d)(3),(f)(1)(ii), (i)(4), 
(j)(4), (n)(1), (o)(1), (o)(1)(ii), (s)(2)(iv), (t) introductory text, 
(t)(2)(i), (t)(2)(ii), (t)(4), (t)(5); Sec.  63.1511(a) introductory 
text, (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(6), (c)(9), (g)(5); 
Sec.  63.1512(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (h)(2), (j), (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(i), 
(o) introductory text, (o)(1), (o)(3), (p)(2); Sec.  63.1513 (b)(1), 
(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f); Sec.  63.1516 (b) introductory text, 
(b)(2)(vii), (b)(3)(i); Sec.  63.1517(b)(1)(iii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(14), 
(b)(19).
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source constructed before 
February 14, 2012, must comply with the following requirements of this 
subpart by September 18, 2017: Sec.  63.1505(i)(4) and (k)(2) emission 
standards for HF; Sec.  63.1512(e)(4) through (7) requirements for 
testing existing uncontrolled group 1 furnaces (that is, group 1 
furnaces without add-on air pollution control devices); and Sec.  
63.1514 requirements for change of furnace classification.
    (d) An affected source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after February 11, 1999 but before February 14, 2012 
must comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2000 or 
upon startup, whichever is later, except as provided in paragraphs (b), 
(c), (e), and (f) of this section.
    (e) The owner or operator of an affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after February 14, 2012, must comply 
with all the requirements of this subpart by September 18, 2015 or upon 
startup, whichever is later.
    (f) The owner or operator of any affected source which is 
constructed or reconstructed after February 11, 1999, but before 
February 14, 2012 at any existing aluminum die casting facility, 
aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which otherwise meets 
the applicability criteria set forth in Sec.  63.1500 must comply with 
the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003 or upon startup, 
whichever is later, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section. The owner or operator of any affected source which is 
constructed or reconstructed after February 14, 2012, at any existing 
aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion 
facility which otherwise meets the applicability criteria set forth in 
Sec.  63.1500 must comply with the requirements by September 18, 2015 
or upon startup, whichever is later.


Sec.  63.1502  [Removed and Reserved]

0
4. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1502.

0
5. Section 63.1503 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition of ``ACGIH Guidelines'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``aluminum scrap shredder'';
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions of ``bale breaker'' and 
``capture and collection system'';
0
d. Revising the definitions of ``clean charge,'' ``cover flux,'' 
``Group 2 furnace,'' and ``HCl'';
0
e. Adding in alphabetical order a definition of ``HF'';
0
f. Revising the definition of ``residence time'';
0
g. Adding in alphabetical order a definition of ``round top furnace'';
0
h. Revising the definitions of ``scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln'' and ``secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU)''; and
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order definitions of ``shutdown,'' 
``startup,'' ``tap,'' and ``total reactive fluorine flux injection 
rate''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1503  Definitions.

* * * * *
    ACGIH Guidelines means chapters 3 and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: 
A Manual of Recommended Practice 23rd

[[Page 56739]]

edition or appropriate chapters of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice for Design 27th edition (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    Aluminum scrap shredder means a high speed or low speed unit that 
crushes, grinds, granulates, shears or breaks aluminum scrap into a 
more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. A bale breaker is not an 
aluminum scrap shredder. Shearing and cutting operations performed at 
rolling mills and aluminum finishing operations (such as slitters) are 
not aluminum scrap shredders.
* * * * *
    Bale breaker means a device used to break apart a bale of aluminum 
scrap for further processing. Bale breakers are not used to crush, 
grind, granulate, shear or break aluminum scrap into more uniform size 
pieces.
* * * * *
    Capture and collection system means the system, including duct 
systems and fans, and, in some cases, hoods, used to collect a 
contaminant at or near its source, and for affected sources equipped 
with an air pollution control device, transport the contaminated air to 
the air cleaning device.
* * * * *
    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[emsp14][deg]F) or higher; aluminum scrap 
delacquered/decoated at 482 [deg]C (900[emsp14][deg]F) or higher; and 
runaround scrap. Anodized aluminum that contains dyes or sealants 
containing organic compounds is not clean charge.
    Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a 
group 1 or group 2 furnace, without surface agitation of the molten 
aluminum, for the purpose of preventing oxidation. Any flux added to a 
rotary furnace is not a cover flux.
* * * * *
    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. Unheated pots, to which no flux is added and that are 
used to transport metal, are not furnaces.
    HCl means hydrogen chloride.
    HF means hydrogen fluoride.
* * * * *
    Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time 
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. 
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion 
zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream 
in actual cubic feet per second. The combustion zone volume includes 
the reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream 
is exposed to the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory 
lined portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple.
* * * * *
    Round top furnace means a cylindrically-shaped reverberatory 
furnace that has a top that is removed for charging and other furnace 
operations.
* * * * *
    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, or that separates aluminum 
foil from paper and plastic in scrap.
    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. A secondary aluminum production facility may have more than one 
new SAPU.
* * * * *
    Shutdown means the period of operation for thermal chip dryers, 
scrap dryers/delacquering kilns, decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, 
group 1 furnaces, in-line fluxers, sweat furnaces and group 2 furnaces 
that begins when the introduction of feed/charge is intentionally 
halted, the source of heat to the emissions unit is turned off, and 
product has been removed from the emission unit to the greatest extent 
practicable (e.g., by tapping a furnace). Shutdown ends when the 
emission unit is near ambient temperature.
* * * * *
    Startup means the period of operation for thermal chip dryers, 
scrap dryers/delacquering kilns, decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, 
group 1 furnaces, in-line fluxers, sweat furnaces and group 2 furnaces 
that begins with equipment warming from a shutdown, that is, the 
equipment is at or near ambient temperature. Startup ends at the point 
that flux or feed/charge is introduced.
* * * * *
    Tap means the end of an operating cycle of any individual furnace 
when processed molten aluminum is poured from that furnace.
* * * * *
    Total reactive fluorine flux injection rate means the sum of the 
total weight of fluorine in the gaseous or liquid reactive flux added 
to an uncontrolled group 1 furnace, and the total weight of fluorine in 
the solid reactive flux added to an uncontrolled group 1 furnace, 
divided by the total weight of feed/charge, as determined by the 
procedure in Sec.  63.1512(o).

0
6. Section 63.1505 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (i)(4), (k) 
introductory text, (k)(1) through (3), and (k)(6) to read as follows:


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

    (a) Summary. The owner or operator of a new or existing affected 
source must comply at all times with each applicable limit in this 
section, including periods of startup and shutdown. Table 1 to this 
subpart summarizes the emission standards for each type of source.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) 0.20 kg of HF per Mg (0.40 lb of HF per ton) of feed/charge 
from an uncontrolled group 1 furnace and 0.20 kg of HCl per Mg (0.40 lb 
of HCl per ton) of feed/charge or, if the furnace is equipped with an 
add-on air pollution control device, 10 percent of the uncontrolled HCl 
emissions, by weight, for a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source.
* * * * *
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 
comply with the emission limits

[[Page 56740]]

calculated using the equations for PM, HCl and HF in paragraphs (k)(1) 
and (2) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at 
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source. The 
owner or operator must comply with the emission limit calculated using 
the equation for D/F in paragraph (k)(3) of this section for each 
secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major or area source.
    (1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of PM in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.007


Where:
LtiPM = The PM emission limit for individual emission 
unit i in paragraph (i)(1) and (2) of this section for a group 1 
furnace or in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for an in-line 
fluxer;
Tti = The mass of feed/charge for 24 hours for individual 
emission unit i; and
LcPM = The daily PM emission limit for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-
hour PM emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

    Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be 
included in this calculation since they are not subject to the PM 
limit.

    (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 or HF in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.008


Where:
LtiHCl/HF = The HCl emission limit for individual 
emission unit i in paragraph (i)(4) of this section for a group 1 
furnace or in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for an in-line 
fluxer; or the HF emission limit for individual emission unit i in 
paragraph (i)(4) of this section for an uncontrolled group 1 
furnace; and
LcHCl/HF = The daily HCl or HF emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-
day, 24-hour HCl or HF emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

    Note: Only uncontrolled group 1 furnaces are included in this HF 
limit calculation. In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials 
cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to 
the HCl or HF limit.

    (3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of D/F in excess of: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.009


Where:
LtiD/F = The D/F emission limit for individual emission 
unit i in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 furnace; 
and
LcD/F = The daily D/F emission limit for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-
hour D/F emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

    Note: Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this 
calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit.

* * * * *
    (6) With the prior approval of the permitting authority for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources, 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 NESHAP and will be irreversible.

0
7. Section 63.1506 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(5), (k)(3), and (m)(4);
0
f. Adding paragraph (m)(7); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (n)(1).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1506  Operating requirements.

    (a) Summary. (1) The owner or operator must operate all new and 
existing affected sources and control equipment according to the 
requirements in this section. The affected sources, and their 
associated control equipment, listed in Sec.  63.1500(c)(1) through (4) 
of this subpart that are located at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is an area source are subject to the operating 
requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d),

[[Page 56741]]

(f), (g), (h), (m), (n), and (p) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator 
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of 
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates 
or facial inlet velocities as contained in the ACGIH Guidelines 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14);
* * * * *
    (4) In lieu of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the owner or 
operator of a sweat furnace may design, install and operate each sweat 
furnace in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) As demonstrated by an annual negative air flow test conducted 
in accordance with Sec.  63.1510(d)(3), air flow must be into the sweat 
furnace or towards the plane of the sweat furnace opening.
    (ii) The owner or operator must maintain and operate the sweat 
furnace in a manner consistent with the good practices requirements for 
minimizing emissions, including unmeasured emissions, in paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section. Procedures that will minimize unmeasured 
emissions may include, but are not limited to the following:
    (A) Increasing the exhaust rate from the furnace with draft fans, 
so as to capture emissions that might otherwise escape from the sweat 
furnace opening;
    (B) Minimizing the time the sweat furnace doors are open;
    (C) Keeping building doors and other openings closed to the 
greatest extent possible to minimize drafts that would divert emissions 
from being drawn into the sweat furnace;
    (D) Maintaining burners on low-fire or pilot operation while the 
doors are open;
    (E) Conducting periodic inspections and maintenance of sweat 
furnace components to ensure their proper operation and performance 
including but not limited to, door assemblies, seals, combustion 
chamber refractory material, afterburner and stack refractory, blowers, 
fans, dampers, burner tubes, door raise cables, pilot light assemblies, 
baffles, sweat furnace and afterburner shells and other internal 
structures.
    (iii) The owner or operator must document in their operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan the procedures to be used to 
minimize emissions, including unmeasured emissions, in addition to the 
procedures to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of the sweat 
furnace.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) For a continuous injection device, maintain free-flowing lime 
in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime 
feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance 
test.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) For a continuous injection system, maintain free-flowing lime 
in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime 
feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance 
test.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (4) For a continuous lime injection system, maintain free-flowing 
lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the 
lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the 
performance test.
* * * * *
    (7) The operation of capture/collection systems and control devices 
associated with natural gas-fired, propane-fired or electrically heated 
group 1 furnaces that will be idled for at least 24 hours after the 
furnace cycle has been completed may be temporarily stopped. Operation 
of these capture/collection systems and control devices must be 
restarted before feed/charge, flux or alloying materials are added to 
the furnace.
    (n) * * *
    (1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and 
fluorine flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time period 
used in the performance test, at or below the average rate established 
during the performance test.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.1510 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(5);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(9);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) and (d)(3);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f)(1)(ii);
0
f. Adding paragraph (f)(4);
0
g. Revising paragraph (i)(3);
0
h. Adding paragraph (i)(4);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (j)(4), (n)(1) and (2), (o)(1), 
(s)(2)(iv), (s)(3), and (t) introductory text;
0
j. Adding paragraphs (t)(2)(i) through (iii); and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (t)(4) and (5).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Summary. The owner or operator of a new or existing affected 
source or emission unit must monitor all control equipment and 
processes according to the requirements in this section. Monitoring 
requirements for each type of affected source and emission unit are 
summarized in Table 3 to this subpart. Area sources are subject to 
monitoring requirements for those affected sources listed in Sec.  
63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of this subpart, and associated control 
equipment as required by paragraphs (b) through (k), (n) through (q), 
and (s) through (w) of this section, including but not limited to:
    (1) The OM&M plan required in paragraph (b) of this section 
pertaining to each affected source listed in Sec.  63.1500(c)(1) 
through (4) of this subpart,
    (2) The labeling requirements described in paragraph (c) of this 
section pertaining to group 1 furnaces processing other than clean 
charge, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,
    (3) The requirements for capture and collection described in 
paragraph (d) of this section for each controlled affected source 
(i.e., affected sources with an add-on air pollution control device), 
listed in Sec.  63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of this subpart,
    (4) The feed/charge weight monitoring requirements described in 
paragraph (e) of this section applicable to group 1 furnaces processing 
other than clean charge, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns 
and thermal chip dryers,
    (5) The bag leak detection system requirements described in 
paragraph (f) of this section applicable to all bag leak detection 
systems installed on fabric filters and lime injected fabric filters 
used to control each affected source listed in Sec.  63.1500(c)(1)-(4) 
of this subpart,
    (6) The requirements for afterburners described in paragraph (g) of 
this

[[Page 56742]]

section applicable to sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, and scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,
    (7) The requirements for monitoring fabric filter inlet temperature 
described in paragraph (h) of this section for all lime injected fabric 
filters used to control group 1 furnaces processing other than clean 
charge, sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 
kilns,
    (8) The requirements for monitoring lime injection described in 
paragraph (i) of this section applicable to all lime injected fabric 
filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces processing 
other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,
    (9) The requirements for monitoring total reactive flux injection 
described in paragraph (j) of this section for all group 1 furnaces 
processing other than clean charge,
    (10) The requirements described in paragraph (k) of this section 
for thermal chip dryers,
    (11) The requirements described in paragraph (n) of this section 
for controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean 
charge,
    (12) The requirements described in paragraph (o) of this section 
for uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean 
charge,
    (13) The requirements described in paragraph (p) of this section 
for scrap inspection programs for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces,
    (14) The requirements described in paragraph (q) of this section 
for monitoring scrap contamination level for uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces,
    (15) The requirements described in paragraph (s) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units, limited to compliance with 
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge,
    (16) The requirements described in paragraph (t) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units limited to compliance with 
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge,
    (17) The requirements described in paragraph (u) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units limited to compliance with 
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge,
    (18) The requirements described in paragraph (v) of this section 
for alternative lime addition monitoring methods applicable to lime-
injected fabric filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces 
processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces 
and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, and
    (19) The requirements described in paragraph (w) of this section 
for approval of alternate methods for monitoring group 1 furnaces 
processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and sweat furnaces and associated 
control devices for the control of D/F emissions.
    (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner 
or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing 
affected source and emission unit, a written OM&M plan. The owner or 
operator of an existing affected source must submit the OM&M plan to 
the permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for 
area sources no later than the compliance date established by Sec.  
63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source must 
submit the OM&M plan to the permitting authority for major sources, or 
the Administrator for area sources within 90 days after a successful 
initial performance test under Sec.  63.1511(b), or within 90 days 
after the compliance date established by Sec.  63.1501(b) if no initial 
performance test is required. The plan must be accompanied by a written 
certification by the owner or operator that the OM&M plan satisfies all 
requirements of this section and is otherwise consistent with the 
requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must comply with 
all of the provisions of the OM&M plan as submitted to the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources, 
unless and until the plan is revised in accordance with the following 
procedures. If the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources 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 for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources. Each plan must contain 
the following information:
* * * * *
    (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device 
parameters, including lime injection rates, procedures for annual 
inspections of afterburners, and if applicable, the procedure to be 
used for determining charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a 
measurement device is not used.
* * * * *
    (9) Procedures to be followed when changing furnace classifications 
under the provisions of Sec.  63.1514.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at least 
once each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in 
accordance with the operating requirements in Sec.  63.1506(c) and 
record the results of each inspection. This inspection shall include a 
volumetric flow rate measurement taken at a location in the ductwork 
downstream of the hoods that is representative of the actual volumetric 
flow rate without interference due to leaks, ambient air added for 
cooling or ducts from other hoods. The flow rate measurement must be 
performed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of 
this section. As an alternative to the flow rate measurement specified 
in this paragraph, the inspection may satisfy the requirements of this 
paragraph, including the operating requirements in Sec.  63.1506(c), by 
including permanent total enclosure verification in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (iv) of this section. Inspections that fail to 
successfully demonstrate that the requirements of Sec.  63.1506(c) are 
met, must be followed by repair or adjustment to the system operating 
conditions and a follow up inspection within 45 days to demonstrate 
that Sec.  63.1506(c) requirements are fully met.
    (i) Conduct annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1 and 2 
in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, or conduct annual verification of a 
permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204; or you may follow one 
of the three alternate procedures described in paragraphs (ii), (iii), 
or (iv) of this section to maintain system operations in accordance 
with an operating limit established during the performance test. The 
operating limit is determined as the average reading of a parametric 
monitoring instrument (Magnehelic[supreg], manometer, anemometer, or 
other parametric monitoring instrument) and technique as described in 
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section. A deviation, as 
defined in paragraphs (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section, from the 
parametric monitoring operating limit requires the owner or operator to 
make

[[Page 56743]]

repairs or adjustments to restore normal operation within 45 days.
    (ii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements using EPA 
Methods 1 and 2, measurement with EPA Methods 1 and 2 can be performed 
once every 5 years, provided that:
    (A) A flow rate indicator consisting of a pitot tube and 
differential pressure gauge (Magnehelic[supreg], manometer or other 
differential pressure gauge) is installed with the pitot tube tip 
located at a representative point of the duct proximate to the location 
of the Methods 1 and 2 measurement site; and
    (B) The flow rate indicator is installed and operated in accordance 
with the manufacturer's specifications; and
    (C) The differential pressure is recorded during the Method 2 
performance test series; and
    (D) Daily differential pressure readings are made by taking three 
measurements with at least 5 minutes between each measurement and 
averaging the three measurements; and readings are recorded daily and 
maintained at or above 90 percent of the average pressure differential 
indicated by the flow rate indicator during the most recent Method 2 
performance test series; and
    (E) An inspection of the pitot tube and associated lines for 
damage, plugging, leakage and operational integrity is conducted at 
least once per year; or
    (iii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements using EPA 
Methods 1 and 2, measurement with EPA Methods 1 and 2 can be performed 
once every 5 years, provided that:
    (A) Daily measurements of the capture and collection system's fan 
revolutions per minute (RPM) or fan motor amperage (amps) are made by 
taking three measurements with at least 5 minutes between each 
measurement, and averaging the three measurements; and readings are 
recorded daily and maintained at or above 90 percent of the average RPM 
or amps measured during the most recent Method 2 performance test 
series; or
    (B) A static pressure measurement device is installed in the duct 
immediately downstream of the hood exit, and daily pressure readings 
are made by taking three measurements with at least 5 minutes between 
each measurement, and averaging the three measurements; and readings 
are recorded daily and maintained at 90 percent or better of the 
average vacuum recorded during the most recent Method 2 performance 
test series; or
    (C) A hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 
pressure differential sensor, venturi pressure differential monitoring 
or orifice plate equipped with an associated thermocouple and automated 
data logging software and associated hardware is installed; and daily 
readings are made by taking three measurements with at least 5 minutes 
between each measurement, and averaging the three measurements; and 
readings are recorded daily and maintained at 90 percent or greater of 
the average readings during the most recent Method 2 performance test 
series; or
    (D) For booth-type hoods, hotwire anemometer measurements of hood 
face velocity are performed simultaneously with EPA Method 1 and 2 
measurements, and the annual hood face velocity measurements confirm 
that the enclosure draft is maintained at 90 percent or greater of the 
average readings during the most recent Method 2 performance test 
series. Daily readings are made by taking three measurements with at 
least 5 minutes between each measurement, and averaging the three 
measurements; and readings are recorded daily and maintained at 90 
percent or greater of the average readings during the most recent 
Method 1 and 2 performance test series.
    (iv) As an alternative to the annual verification of a permanent 
total enclosure using EPA Method 204, verification can be performed 
once every 5 years, provided that:
    (A) Negative pressure in the enclosure is directly monitored by a 
pressure indicator installed at a representative location;
    (B) Pressure readings are recorded daily or the system is 
interlocked to halt material feed should the system not operate under 
negative pressure;
    (C) An inspection of the pressure indicator for damage and 
operational integrity is conducted at least once per calendar year.
    (3) For sweat furnaces, in lieu of paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, the owner or operator of a sweat furnace may inspect each 
sweat furnace at least once each calendar year to ensure that they are 
being operated in accordance with the negative air flow requirements in 
Sec.  63.1506(c)(4). The owner or operator of a sweat furnace must 
demonstrate negative air flow into the sweat furnace in accordance with 
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Perform an annual visual smoke test to demonstrate airflow into 
the sweat furnace or towards the plane of the sweat furnace opening;
    (ii) Perform the smoke test using a smoke source, such as a smoke 
tube, smoke stick, smoke cartridge, smoke candle or other smoke source 
that produces a persistent and neutral buoyancy aerosol; and
    (iii) Perform the visual smoke test at a safe distance from and 
near the center of the sweat furnace opening.
    (e) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of an affected source 
or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton) or 
[micro]g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed/charge must install, calibrate, operate, 
and maintain a device to measure and record the total weight of feed/
charge to, or the aluminum production from, the affected source or 
emission unit over the same operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test. Feed/charge or aluminum production within SAPUs must 
be measured and recorded on an emission unit-by-emission unit basis. As 
an alternative to a measurement device, the owner or operator may use a 
procedure acceptable to the permitting authority for major sources, or 
the Administrator for area sources to determine the total weight of 
feed/charge or aluminum production to the affected source or emission 
unit.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, 
operated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's operating 
instructions.
* * * * *
    (4) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of 
this section, the owner or operator of a new or existing aluminum scrap 
shredder may measure the opacity of the emissions discharged through a 
stack or stacks using ASTM Method D7520-13 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14) subject to the requirements of paragraphs Sec.  
63.1510(f)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section. Each test must consist 
of five 6-minute observations in a 30-minute period.
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-13, the 
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front 
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions 
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed 
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating 
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks 
to ensure that equipment is within manufacturing specifications as 
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-13.
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping 
procedures

[[Page 56744]]

outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum 
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to 
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each 
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity on any one 
reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (3) An owner or operator who intermittently adds lime to a lime-
injected fabric filter must obtain approval from the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources for 
a lime addition monitoring procedure. The permitting authority for 
major sources, or the Administrator for area sources will not approve a 
monitoring procedure unless data and information are submitted 
establishing that the procedure is adequate to ensure that relevant 
emission standards will be met on a continuous basis.
    (4) At least once per month, verify that the lime injection rate in 
pounds per hour (lb/hr) is no less than 90 percent of the lime 
injection rate used to demonstrate compliance during your most recent 
performance test. If the monthly check of the lime injection rate is 
below the 90 percent, the owner or operator must repair or adjust the 
lime injection system to restore normal operation within 45 days. The 
owner or operator may request from the permitting authority for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources, an extension of up to 
an additional 45 days to demonstrate that the lime injection rate is no 
less than 90 percent of the lime injection rate used to demonstrate 
compliance during the most recent performance test. In the event that a 
lime feeder is repaired or replaced, the feeder must be calibrated, and 
the feed rate must be restored to the lb/hr feed rate operating limit 
established during the most recent performance test within 45 days. The 
owner or operator may request from the permitting authority for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources, an extension of up to 
an additional 45 days to complete the repair or replacement and 
establishing a new setting. The repair or replacement, and the 
establishment of the new feeder setting(s) must be documented in 
accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517.
    (j) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be 1 percent of the weight of the reactive component of the flux 
being measured. The owner or operator may apply to the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources for 
permission to use a weight measurement device of alternative accuracy 
in cases where the reactive flux flow rates are so low as to make the 
use of a weight measurement device of 1 percent 
impracticable. A device of alternative accuracy will not be approved 
unless the owner or operator provides assurance through data and 
information that the affected source will meet the relevant emission 
standards.
* * * * *
    (4) Calculate and record the total reactive flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using 
the procedure in Sec.  63.1512(o). For solid flux that is added 
intermittently, record the amount added for each operating cycle or 
time period used in the performance test using the procedures in Sec.  
63.1512(o).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Record in an operating log for each tap of a sidewell furnace 
whether the level of molten metal was above the top of the passage 
between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless 
the furnace hearth was also equipped with an add-on control device. If 
visual inspection of the molten metal level is not possible, the molten 
metal level must be determined using physical measurement methods.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the operational 
standards in Sec.  63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month reporting period. 
Each certification must contain the information in Sec.  
63.1516(b)(2)(iii).
    (o) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the 
permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area 
sources, a written site-specific monitoring plan. The site-specific 
monitoring plan must be submitted to the permitting authority for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources 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 HF for 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces), and the proposed monitoring parameters 
for each pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM, 
HCl, and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) that will be 
emitted from the furnace in accordance with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1). If the 
permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area 
sources 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.
    (i) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
submit the site-specific monitoring plan to the permitting authority 
for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources for review at 
least 6 months prior to the compliance date.
    (ii) The permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources will review and approve or disapprove a 
proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based on whether the plan 
contains sufficient provisions to ensure continuing compliance with 
applicable emission limits and demonstrates, based on documented test 
results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F (and HF 
for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) and the proposed monitoring 
parameters for each pollutant. Test data must establish the highest 
level of PM, HCl, and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) 
that will be emitted from the furnace. Subject to approval of the OM&M 
plan, the highest levels may be determined by conducting performance 
tests and monitoring operating parameters in accordance with Sec.  
63.1511(b)(1).
* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup or shutdown in 
emission calculations.
    (3) To revise the SAPU compliance provisions within the OM&M plan 
prior to the end of the permit term, the owner or operator must submit 
a request to the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources containing the information required by 
paragraph (s)(1) of this section and obtain approval of the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources 
prior to implementing any revisions.
    (t) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Except as provided in 
paragraph (u) of this section, the owner or operator must calculate and 
record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of PM,

[[Page 56745]]

HCl, and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) for each 
secondary aluminum processing unit on a daily basis. To calculate the 
3-day, 24-hour rolling average, the owner or operator must:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Where no performance test has been conducted, for a particular 
emission unit, because the owner of operator has, with the approval of 
the permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for 
area sources, chosen to determine the emission rate of an emission unit 
by testing a representative unit, in accordance with Sec.  63.1511(f), 
the owner or operator shall use the emission rate determined from the 
representative unit in the SAPU emission rate calculation required in 
Sec.  63.1510(t)(4).
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (t)(2)(iii) of this section, 
if the owner or operator has not conducted performance tests for HCl 
(and HF for an uncontrolled group 1 furnace) or for HCl for an in-line 
fluxer, in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  63.1512(d)(3), 
(e)(3), or (h)(2), the calculation required in Sec.  63.1510(t)(4) to 
determine SAPU-wide HCl and HF emissions shall be made under the 
assumption that all chlorine contained in reactive flux added to the 
emission unit is emitted as HCl and all fluorine contained in reactive 
flux added to the emission unit is emitted as HF.
    (iii) Prior to the date by which the initial performance test for 
HF emissions from uncontrolled group 1 furnaces is conducted, or is 
required to be conducted, the calculation required in Sec.  63.1505(k) 
to determine the SAPU-wide HF emission limit and the calculation 
required in Sec.  63.1510(t)(4) to determine the SAPU-wide HF emission 
rate must exclude HF emissions from untested uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces and feed/charge processed in untested uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces.
* * * * *
    (4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using Equation 4:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.010
    
Where:

Eday = The daily PM, HCl, and D/F (and HF for 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) emission rate for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit for the 24-hour period;
Ti = The total amount of feed, or aluminum produced, for 
emission unit i for the 24-hour period (tons or Mg);
ERi = The measured emission rate for emission unit i as 
determined in the performance test (lb/ton or [micro]g/Mg of feed/
charge); and
n = The number of emission units in the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

    (5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for 
each pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for each 
pollutant over the 3 most recent consecutive days and dividing by 3. 
The SAPU is in compliance with an applicable emission limit if the 3-
day, 24-hour rolling average for each pollutant is no greater than the 
applicable SAPU emission limit determined in accordance with Sec.  
63.1505(k)(1)-(3).
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1511 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(1) and (3);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (7);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(9), (d), and (f) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraph (f)(6);
0
e. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
0
f. Adding paragraph (g)(5); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general 
requirements.

    (a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance 
test required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare a 
site-specific test plan which satisfies all of the rule requirements, 
and must obtain approval of the plan pursuant to the procedures set 
forth in Sec.  63.7. Performance tests shall be conducted under such 
conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator 
based on representative performance of the affected source for the 
period being tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make 
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial 
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and 
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as 
described in Sec.  63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any affected 
source constructed before February 14, 2012, for which an initial 
performance test is required to demonstrate compliance must conduct 
this initial performance test no later than the date for compliance 
established by Sec.  63.1501(a), (b), or (c). The owner or operator of 
any affected source constructed after February 14, 2012, for which an 
initial performance test is required must conduct this initial 
performance test within 180 days after the date for compliance 
established by Sec.  63.1501(e) or (f). Except for the date by which 
the performance test must be conducted, the owner or operator must 
conduct each performance test in accordance with the requirements and 
procedures set forth in Sec.  63.7(c). Owners or operators of affected 
sources located at facilities which are area sources are subject only 
to those performance testing requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners or 
operators of sweat furnaces meeting the specifications of Sec.  
63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a performance test.
    (1) The performance tests must be conducted under representative 
conditions expected to produce the highest level of HAP emissions 
expressed in the units of the emission standards for the HAP 
(considering the extent of feed/charge contamination, reactive flux 
addition rate and feed/charge rate). If a single test condition is not 
expected to produce the highest level of emissions for all HAP, testing 
under two or more sets of conditions (for example high contamination at 
low feed/charge rate, and low contamination at high feed/charge rate) 
may be required. Any subsequent performance tests for the purposes of 
establishing new or revised parametric limits shall be allowed upon 
pre-approval from the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources. These new parametric settings shall be

[[Page 56746]]

used to demonstrate compliance for the period being tested.
* * * * *
    (3) Each performance test for a batch process must consist of three 
separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted over 
the entire process operating cycle. Additionally, for batch processes 
where the length of the process operating cycle is not known in 
advance, and where isokinetic sampling must be conducted based on the 
procedures in Method 5 in appendix A to part 60, use the following 
procedure to ensure that sampling is conducted over the entire process 
operating cycle:
    (i) Choose a minimum operating cycle length and begin sampling 
assuming this minimum length will be the run time (e.g., if the process 
operating cycle is known to last from four to six hours, then assume a 
sampling time of four hours and divide the sampling time evenly between 
the required number of traverse points);
    (ii) After each traverse point has been sampled once, begin 
sampling each point again for the same time per point, in the reverse 
order, until the operating cycle is complete. All traverse points as 
required by Method 1 of appendix A to part 60, must be sampled at least 
once during each test run;
    (iii) In order to distribute the sampling time most evenly over all 
the traverse points, do not perform all runs using the same sampling 
point order (e.g., if there are four ports and sampling for run 1 began 
in port 1, then sampling for run 2 could begin in port 4 and continue 
in reverse order.)
* * * * *
    (6) Apply paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section for each 
pollutant separately if a different production rate, charge material 
or, if applicable, reactive fluxing rate would apply and thereby result 
in a higher expected emissions rate for that pollutant.
    (7) The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction.
    (c) * * *
    (9) Method 26A for the concentration of HCl and HF. Method 26 may 
also be used, except at sources where entrained water droplets are 
present in the emission stream. Where a lime-injected fabric filter is 
used as the control device to comply with the 90 percent reduction 
standard, the owner or operator must measure the fabric filter inlet 
concentration of HCl at a point before lime is introduced to the 
system.
    (d) Alternative methods. The owner or operator may use alternative 
test methods as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) The owner or operator may use test method ASTM D7520-13 as an 
alternative to EPA Method 9 subject to conditions described in Sec.  
63.1510(f)(4).
    (2) In lieu of conducting the annual flow rate measurements using 
Methods 1 and 2, the owner or operator may use Method 204 in Appendix M 
to 40 CFR part 51 to conduct annual verification of a permanent total 
enclosure for the affected source/emission unit.
    (3) The owner or operator may use an alternative test method 
approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (f) Testing of representative emission units. With the prior 
approval of the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources, an owner or operator may utilize 
emission rates obtained by testing a particular type of group 1 furnace 
that does not have an add-on air pollution control device, or by 
testing an in-line flux box that does not have an add-on air pollution 
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:
* * * * *
    (6) All 3 separate runs of a performance test must be conducted on 
the same emission unit.
    (g) Establishment of monitoring and operating parameter values. The 
owner or operator of new or existing affected sources and emission 
units must establish a minimum or maximum operating parameter value, or 
an operating parameter range for each parameter to be monitored as 
required by Sec.  63.1510 that ensures compliance with the applicable 
emission limit or standard. To establish the minimum or maximum value 
or range, the owner or operator must use the appropriate procedures in 
this section and submit the information required by Sec.  63.1515(b)(4) 
in the notification of compliance status report. The owner or operator 
may use existing data in addition to the results of performance tests 
to establish operating parameter values for compliance monitoring 
provided each of the following conditions are met to the satisfaction 
of the permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for 
area sources:
* * * * *
    (5) If the owner or operator wants to conduct a new performance 
test and establish different operating parameter values, they must 
submit a revised site specific test plan and receive approval in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, if an owner 
or operator wants to use existing data in addition to the results of 
the new performance test to establish operating parameter values, they 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (i) Testing of commonly-ducted units not within a secondary 
aluminum processing unit. With the prior approval of the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources, 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:
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.1512 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (e)(1) through (3);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) through (7); and
0
c. Revising paragrpahs (h)(2), (j) introductory text, (j)(1)(i), 
(j)(2)(i), (o) introductory text, (o)(1), (o)(3) through (5), and 
(p)(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


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

    (a) Aluminum scrap shredder. The owner or operator must conduct 
performance tests to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control 
system. If visible emission observation is the selected monitoring 
option, the owner or operator must record visible emission observations 
from each exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the 
PM emission test according to the requirements of Method 9 in appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 60. If emissions observations by ASTM Method D7520-13 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) is the selected monitoring 
option, the owner or operator must record opacity observations from 
each exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM 
emission test.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge 
material, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure 
emissions of PM, HCl, HF, and D/F at the furnace exhaust outlet.

[[Page 56747]]

    (2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner 
or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure 
emissions of PM, HCl and HF. A D/F test is not required. Each test must 
be conducted while the group 1 furnace (including a melting/holding 
furnace) processes only clean charge.
    (3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of 
reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for the 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that 
all chlorine and fluorine contained in reactive flux added to the group 
1 furnace is emitted as HCl and HF. Under these circumstances, the 
owner or operator is not required to conduct an emission test for HCl 
or HF.
    (4) When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 
operator must comply with the requirements of either paragraphs 
(e)(4)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section at the next required 
performance test required by Sec.  63.1511(e).
    (i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14), or
    (ii) At least 180 days prior to testing petition the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources, 
that such hoods are impractical under the provisions of paragraph 
(e)(6) of this section and propose testing procedures that will 
minimize unmeasured emissions during the performance test according to 
the paragraph (e)(7) of this section, or
    (iii) Assume an 80-percent capture efficiency for the furnace 
exhaust (i.e., multiply emissions measured at the furnace exhaust 
outlet by 1.25). If the source fails to demonstrate compliance using 
the 80-percent capture efficiency assumption, the owner or operator 
must re-test with a hood that meets the ACGIH Guidelines within 180 
days, or petition the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources, within 180 days that such hoods are 
impractical under the provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this section 
and propose testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions 
during the performance test according to paragraph (e)(7) of this 
section.
    (iv) The 80-percent capture efficiency assumption is not applicable 
in the event of testing conducted under an approved petition submitted 
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
    (v) Round top furnaces constructed before February 14, 2012, and 
reconstructed round top furnaces are exempt from the requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. Round top furnaces must 
be operated to minimize unmeasured emissions according to paragraph 
(e)(7) of this section.
    (5) When testing a new uncontrolled furnace constructed after 
February 14, 2012, the owner or operator must install hooding that 
meets ACGIH Guidelines (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) or 
petition the permitting authority for major sources, or the 
Administrator for area sources, that such hoods are impracticable under 
the provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this section and propose testing 
procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions during the 
performance test according to the provisions of paragraph (e)(7).
    (6) The installation of hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) is considered impractical 
if any of the following conditions exist:
    (i) Building or equipment obstructions (for example, wall, ceiling, 
roof, structural beams, utilities, overhead crane or other 
obstructions) are present such that the temporary hood cannot be 
located consistent with acceptable hood design and installation 
practices;
    (ii) Space limitations or work area constraints exist such that the 
temporary hood cannot be supported or located to prevent interference 
with normal furnace operations or avoid unsafe working conditions for 
the furnace operator; or
    (iii) Other obstructions and limitations subject to agreement of 
the permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for 
area sources.
    (7) Testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions may 
include, but are not limited to the following:
    (i) Installing a hood that does not entirely meet ACGIH guidelines;
    (ii) Using the building as an enclosure, and measuring emissions 
exhausted from the building if there are no other furnaces or other 
significant sources in the building of the pollutants to be measured;
    (iii) Installing temporary baffles on those sides or top of furnace 
opening if it is practical to do so where they will not interfere with 
material handling or with the furnace door opening and closing;
    (iv) Minimizing the time the furnace doors are open or the top is 
off;
    (v) Delaying gaseous reactive fluxing until charging doors are 
closed and, for round top furnaces, until the top is on;
    (vi) Agitating or stirring molten metal as soon as practicable 
after salt flux addition and closing doors as soon as possible after 
solid fluxing operations, including mixing and dross removal;
    (vii) Keeping building doors and other openings closed to the 
greatest extent possible to minimize drafts that would divert emissions 
from being drawn into the furnace;
    (viii) Maintaining burners on low-fire or pilot operation while the 
doors are open or the top is off;
    (ix) Use of fans or other device to direct flow into a furnace when 
door is open; or
    (x) Removing the furnace cover one time in order to add a smaller 
but representative charge and then replacing the cover.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which 
reactive 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 that has no ventilation ductwork manifolded to 
any outlet or emission control device chooses to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits for HCl by limiting use of reactive 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 use 
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.
* * * * *
    (j) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 
conduct performance tests as described in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) 
of this section. The results of the performance tests are used to 
establish emission rates in lb/ton of feed/charge for PM, HCl and HF 
and [micro]g TEQ/Mg of feed/charge for D/F emissions from each emission 
unit. These emission rates are used for compliance monitoring in the 
calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission rates using 
the equation in Sec.  63.1510(t). A performance test is required for:
    (1) * * *
    (i) Emissions of HF and HCl (for determining the emission limit); 
or
* * * * *
    (2) * * *

[[Page 56748]]

    (i) Emissions of HF and HCl (for determining the emission limit); 
or
* * * * *
    (o) Flux injection rate. The owner or operator must use these 
procedures to establish an operating parameter value or range for the 
total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and, for uncontrolled 
furnaces, the total reactive fluorine flux injection rate.
    (1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl, HF and 
D/F tests, determine and record the 15-minute block average weights, 
and calculate and record the total weight of the gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux for the 3 test runs;
* * * * *
    (3) Determine the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and, 
for uncontrolled furnaces, the total reactive fluorine flux injection 
rate by adding the recorded measurement of the total weight of chlorine 
and, for uncontrolled furnaces, fluorine in the gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux injected and the total weight of chlorine and, for 
uncontrolled furnaces, fluorine in the solid reactive flux using 
Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.011

Where:

Wt = Total chlorine or fluorine usage, by weight;
F1 = Fraction of gaseous or liquid flux that is chlorine 
or fluorine;
W1 = Weight of reactive flux gas injected;
F2 = Fraction of solid reactive chloride flux that is 
chlorine (e.g., F = 0.75 for magnesium chloride) or fraction of 
solid reactive fluoride flux that is fluorine (e.g., F = 0.33 for 
potassium fluoride); and
W2 = Weight of solid reactive flux;

    (4) Divide the weight of total chlorine or fluorine usage 
(Wt) for the 3 test runs by the recorded measurement of the 
total weight of feed for the 3 test runs; and
    (5) If a solid reactive flux other than magnesium chloride or 
potassium fluoride is used, the owner or operator must derive the 
appropriate proportion factor subject to approval by the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources.
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (2) Record the feeder setting and lime injection rate for the 3 
test runs. If the feed rate setting and lime injection rates vary 
between the runs, determine and record the average feed rate and lime 
injection rate from the 3 runs.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1513 is amended by revising the paragraph (b) heading 
and paragraphs (b)(1), (d), and (e)(1) through (3), and adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1513  Equations for determining compliance.

* * * * *
    (b) PM, HCl, HF and D/F emission limits. (1) Use Equation 7 of this 
section to determine compliance with an emission limit for PM, HCl or 
HF:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.012

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM, HCl or HF, in kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C = Concentration of PM, HCl or HF, in g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, in dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P = Production rate, in Mg/hr (ton/hr).
* * * * *
    (d) Conversion of D/F measurements to TEQ units. To convert D/F 
measurements to TEQ units, the owner or operator must use the 
procedures and equations in Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks 
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update, incorporated by 
reference see Sec.  63.14.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM emissions for a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-
weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(EcPM) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcPM) calculated using 
Equation 1 in Sec.  63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.013

Where:

EcPM = The mass-weighted PM emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit;
EtiPM = Measured PM emissions for individual emission 
unit, or group of co-controlled emission units, i;
Tti = The average feed rate for individual emission unit 
i during the operating cycle or performance test period, or the sum 
of the average feed rates for all emission units in the group of co-
controlled emission units i; and
n = The number of emission units, and groups of co-controlled 
emission units in the secondary aluminum processing unit.

    (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl or HF 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit (EcHCl/HF) is less than or equal to the 
emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(LcHCl/HF) calculated using Equation 2 in Sec.  63.1505(k).

[[Page 56749]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.014

Where:

EcHCl/HF = The mass-weighted HCl or HF emissions for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit; and
EtiHCl/HF = Measured HCl or HF emissions for individual 
emission unit, or group of co-controlled emission units i.

    (3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted D/F 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcD/F) calculated using 
Equation 3 in Sec.  63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.015

Where:

EcD/F = The mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit; and
EtiD/F = Measured D/F emissions for individual emission 
unit, or group of co-controlled emission units i.

* * * * *
    (f) Periods of startup and shutdown. For a new or existing affected 
source, or a new or existing emission unit subject to an emissions 
limit in paragraphs Sec.  63.1505(b) through (j) expressed in units of 
pounds per ton of feed/charge, or [mu]g TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed/
charge, demonstrate compliance during periods of startup and shutdown 
in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section or determine your 
emissions per unit of feed/charge during periods of startup and 
shutdown in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section. Startup 
and shutdown emissions for group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers must be 
calculated individually, and not on the basis of a SAPU. Periods of 
startup and shutdown are excluded from the calculation of SAPU emission 
limits in Sec.  63.1505(k), the SAPU monitoring requirements in Sec.  
63.1510(t) and the SAPU emissions calculations in Sec.  63.1513(e).
    (1) For periods of startup and shutdown, records establishing a 
feed/charge rate of zero, a flux rate of zero, and that the affected 
source or emission unit was either heated with electricity, propane or 
natural gas as the sole sources of heat or was not heated, may be used 
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit, or
    (2) For periods of startup and shutdown, divide your measured 
emissions in lb/hr or [mu]g/hr or ng/hr by the feed/charge rate in 
tons/hr or Mg/hr from your most recent performance test associated with 
a production rate greater than zero, or the rated capacity of the 
affected source if no prior performance test data is available.

0
12. Section 63.1514 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1514  Change of Furnace Classification.

    The requirements of this section are in addition to the other 
requirements of this subpart that apply to group 1 and group 2 
furnaces.
    (a) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing other 
than clean charge to group 1 uncontrolled furnace processing other than 
clean charge. An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes 
must conduct performance tests in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1511 
and 63.1512 to demonstrate to the permitting authority for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources that compliance can be 
achieved under both modes. Operating parameters relevant to each mode 
of operation must be established during the performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with 
the capture system and control device operating normally if compliance 
has not been previously demonstrated in this operating mode. 
Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to 
demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) in the controlled mode.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (2) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl, HF and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) 
without operating a control device if compliance has not been 
previously demonstrated for this operating mode. Performance tests must 
be repeated at least once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance for 
each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) in the uncontrolled mode.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Operating parameters representing uncontrolled operation must 
be established during these tests, as required by Sec.  63.1511(g). For 
furnaces in batch (cyclic) operation, the number of tap-to-tap cycles 
(including zero, if none) elapsed using the feed/charge type, feed/
charge rate and flux rate must be established as a parameter to be met 
before changing to uncontrolled mode. For furnaces in continuous (non-
cyclic) operation, the time period elapsed (including no time, if none) 
using the feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must be 
established as a parameter to be met before changing to uncontrolled 
mode.
    (iv) The emission factors for this mode of operation for use in the 
demonstration of compliance with the

[[Page 56750]]

emission limits for SAPUs specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be 
determined.
    (3) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with the capture 
system and control device operating normally, if compliance has not 
been previously demonstrated for this operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) in the controlled mode.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (4) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a 
control device, if compliance has not been previously demonstrated for 
this operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1).
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Operating parameters representing uncontrolled operation must 
be established during these tests, as required by Sec.  63.1511(g). For 
furnaces in batch (cyclic) operation, the number of tap-to-tap cycles 
(including zero, if none) elapsed using the feed/charge type, feed/
charge rate and flux rate must be established as a parameter to be met 
before changing to uncontrolled mode. For furnaces in continuous (non-
cyclic) operation, the time period elapsed (including no time, if none) 
using the feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must be 
established as a parameter to be met before changing to uncontrolled 
mode.
    (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (5) To change modes of operation from uncontrolled to controlled, 
the owner or operator must perform the following, before charging scrap 
to the furnace that exceeds the contaminant level established for 
uncontrolled mode:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 
operation;
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device;
    (iii) Turn on the control device and begin lime addition to the 
control device at the rate established for controlled mode; and
    (iv) Ensure the control device is operating properly.
    (6) To change modes of operation from controlled to uncontrolled, 
the owner or operator must perform the following, before turning off or 
bypassing the control device:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect uncontrolled 
operation;
    (ii) Charge scrap with a level of contamination no greater than 
that used in the performance test for uncontrolled furnaces for the 
number of tap-to-tap cycles that elapsed (or, for continuously operated 
furnaces, the time elapsed) before the uncontrolled mode performance 
test was conducted; and
    (iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the flux 
addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance test.
    (7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (controlled to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to controlled), the 
time the change is initiated, and the time the exhaust gas is diverted 
from control device to bypass or bypass to control device.
    (b) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing other 
than clean charge to a group 1 uncontrolled furnace processing clean 
charge. An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes must 
conduct performance tests in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1511 and 
63.1512 to demonstrate to the permitting authority for major sources, 
or the Administrator for area sources that compliance can be achieved 
in both modes. Operating parameters relevant to each mode of operation 
must be established during the performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with 
the capture system and control device operating normally if compliance 
has not been previously demonstrated in this operating mode. 
Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to 
demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) in the controlled mode.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (2) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl, HF and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) 
without operating a control device if compliance has not been 
previously demonstrated for this operating mode. Performance tests must 
be repeated at least once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance for 
each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after 
operation with clean charge has commenced.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Operating parameters representing uncontrolled operation must 
be established during these tests, as required by Sec.  63.1511(g). For 
furnaces in batch (cyclic) operation, the number of tap-to-tap cycles 
(including zero, if none) elapsed using the feed/charge type, feed/
charge rate and flux rate must be established as a parameter to be met 
before changing to uncontrolled mode. For furnaces in continuous (non-
cyclic) operation, the time period elapsed (including no time if none) 
using the feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must be 
established as a parameter to be met before changing to uncontrolled 
mode.
    (iv) Emissions of D/F during this test must not exceed 1.5 [micro]g 
TEQ/Mg of feed/charge.
    (v) The emission factors for this mode of operation for use in the 
demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k), must be determined.
    (3) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with the capture 
system and control device operating normally, if compliance has not 
been previously demonstrated for this operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1).
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (4) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a 
control device if compliance has not been previously demonstrated for 
this operating mode.

[[Page 56751]]

    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted at any time 
after operation with clean charge has commenced and must be conducted 
in accordance with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) and under representative 
conditions expected to produce the highest level of D/F in the 
uncontrolled mode.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Operating parameters representing uncontrolled operation must 
be established during these tests, as required by Sec.  63.1511(g). For 
furnaces in batch (cyclic) operation, the number of tap-to-tap cycles 
elapsed (including zero, if none) using the feed/charge type, feed/
charge rate and flux rate must be established as a parameter to be met 
before changing to uncontrolled mode. For furnaces in continuous (non-
cyclic) operation, the time period elapsed (including no time, if none) 
using the feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must be 
established as a parameter to be met before changing to uncontrolled 
mode.
    (iv) Emissions of D/F during this test must not exceed 1.5 [micro]g 
TEQ/Mg of feed/charge.
    (5) To change modes of operation from uncontrolled to controlled, 
the owner or operator must perform the following, before charging scrap 
to the furnace that exceeds the contaminant level established for 
uncontrolled mode:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 
operation;
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device;
    (iii) Turn on the control device and begin lime addition to the 
control device at the rate established for controlled mode; and
    (iv) Ensure the control device is operating properly.
    (6) To change modes of operation from controlled to uncontrolled, 
the owner or operator must perform the following, before turning off or 
bypassing the control device:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect uncontrolled 
operation;
    (ii) Charge clean charge for the number of tap-to-tap cycles that 
elapsed (or, for continuously operated furnaces, the time elapsed) 
before the uncontrolled mode performance test was conducted; and
    (iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the flux 
addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance test.
    (7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (controlled to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to controlled), the 
time the furnace operating mode change is initiated, and the time the 
exhaust gas is diverted from control device to bypass or from bypass to 
control device.
    (c) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a 
group 2 furnace. An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes 
must conduct performance tests in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1511 
and 63.1512 to demonstrate to the permitting authority for major 
sources, or the Administrator for area sources that compliance can be 
achieved under both modes and establish the number of cycles (or time) 
of operation with clean charge and no reactive flux addition necessary 
before changing to group 2 mode. Operating parameters relevant to group 
1 operation must be established during the performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) according to 
the procedures in Sec.  63.1512 if compliance has not been previously 
demonstrated for the operating mode. Controlled group 1 furnaces must 
conduct performance tests according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.1512(d) with the capture system and control device operating 
normally. Uncontrolled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests 
according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a 
control device. Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 
5 years to demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) in both modes.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (2) While in compliance with the operating requirements of Sec.  
63.1506(o) for group 2 furnaces, operators of major sources must 
conduct performance tests for PM, HCl, HF and D/F, according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a control device if 
compliance has not been previously demonstrated for this operating 
mode. Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to 
demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after 
the furnace has commenced operation with clean charge and without 
reactive flux addition.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Owners or operators must demonstrate that emissions are no 
greater than:
    (A) 1.5 [micro]g D/F (TEQ) per Mg of feed/charge;
    (B) 0.040 lb HCl or HF per ton of feed/charge; and
    (C) 0.040 lb PM per ton of feed/charge.
    (iv) The number of tap-to-tap cycles, or time elapsed between 
starting operation with clean charge and no reactive flux addition and 
the group 2 furnace performance test must be established as an 
operating parameter to be met before changing to group 2 mode.
    (3) Operators of area sources must conduct a performance tests for 
D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512 if compliance has not 
been previously demonstrated for the operating mode. Controlled group 1 
furnaces must conduct performance tests according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.1512(d) with the capture system and control device operating 
normally. Uncontrolled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests 
according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a 
control device.
    (i) The performance tests must be conducted in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) under representative conditions expected to produce 
the highest expected level of D/F in the group 1 mode.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use 
in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (4) While in compliance with the operating requirements of Sec.  
63.1506(o) for group 2 furnaces, operators of area sources must conduct 
performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.1512(e) without operating a control device if compliance has not 
been previously demonstrated for this operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after 
the furnace has commenced operation with clean charge, and without 
reactive flux addition.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the

[[Page 56752]]

provisions of Sec.  63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent 
tested.
    (iii) Owners or operators must demonstrate that emissions are no 
greater than 1.5 [micro]g D/F (TEQ) per Mg of feed/charge.
    (iv) The number of tap-to-tap cycles, or time elapsed between 
starting operation with clean charge and no reactive flux and the group 
2 furnace performance tests must be established as an operating 
parameter to be met before changing to group 2 mode.
    (5) To change modes of operation from a group 2 furnace to a group 
1 furnace, the owner or operator must perform the following before 
adding other than clean charge and before adding reactive flux to the 
furnace:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 1 operation;
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, if it is 
equipped with a control device;
    (iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device, turn on the 
control device and begin lime addition to the control device at the 
rate established for group 1 mode; and
    (iv) Ensure the control device is operating properly.
    (6) To change mode of operation from a group 1 furnace to group 2 
furnace, the owner or operator must perform the following, before 
turning off or bypassing the control device:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 2 operation;
    (ii) Charge clean charge for the number of tap-to-tap cycles that 
elapsed (or, for continuously operated furnaces, the time elapsed) 
before the group 2 performance test was conducted; and,
    (iii) Use no reactive flux.
    (7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (controlled or uncontrolled to group 2), the time the change is 
initiated, and the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device 
to bypass or from bypass to control device.
    (d) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to 
group 2 furnace, for tilting reverberatory furnaces capable of 
completely removing furnace contents between batches. An owner or 
operator of a tilting reverberatory furnace capable of completely 
removing furnace contents between batches who wishes to change 
operating modes must conduct performance tests in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  63.1511 and 63.1512 to demonstrate to the permitting 
authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources that 
compliance can be achieved under group 1 modes. Operating parameters 
relevant to group 1 operation must be established during the 
performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl, and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled furnaces) according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.1512 if compliance has not been previously 
demonstrated for this operating mode. Controlled group 1 furnaces must 
conduct performance tests with the capture system and control device 
operating normally if compliance has not been previously demonstrated 
for the operating mode. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct 
performance tests according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with 
the capture system and control device operating normally. Uncontrolled 
group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a control device. 
Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to 
demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1511(b)(1) in both modes.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k), must be determined.
    (2) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512 if compliance has not 
been previously demonstrated for this operating mode. Controlled group 
1 furnaces must conduct performance tests according to the procedures 
in Sec.  63.1512(d) with the capture system and control device 
operating normally. Uncontrolled group 1 furnaces must conduct 
performance tests according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) 
without operating a control device.
    (i) The performance test must be conducted in accordance with Sec.  
63.1511(b)(1) under representative conditions expected to produce the 
highest expected level of D/F in the group 1 mode.
    (ii) Operating parameters must be established during these tests, 
as required by Sec.  63.1511(g).
    (iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (3) To change modes of operation from a group 1 furnace to a group 
2 furnace, the owner or operator must perform the following before 
turning off or bypassing the control device:
    (i) Completely remove all aluminum from the furnace;
    (ii) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 2 operation;
    (iii) Use only clean charge; and
    (iv) Use no reactive flux.
    (4) To change modes of operation from a group 2 furnace to a group 
1 furnace, the owner or operator must perform the following before 
adding other than clean charge and before adding reactive flux to the 
furnace:
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 1 operation;
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, if it is 
equipped with a control device;,
    (iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device, turn on the 
control device and begin lime addition to the control device at the 
rate established for group 1 mode; and
    (iv) Ensure the control device is operating properly.
    (5) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (group 1 to group 2, or group 2 to group 1), the time the 
furnace operating mode change is initiated, and, if the furnace is 
equipped with a control device, the time the exhaust gas is diverted 
from control device to bypass or from bypass to control device.
    (e) Limit on Frequency of changing furnace operating mode. (1) 
Changing furnace operating mode including reversion to the previous 
mode, as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, may 
not be done more frequently than 4 times in any 6-month period unless 
you receive approval from the permitting authority or Administrator for 
additional changes pursuant to paragraph (e)(2).
    (2) If additional changes are needed, the owner or operator must 
apply in advance to the permitting authority, for major sources, or the 
Administrator, for area sources, for approval of the additional changes 
in operating mode.

0
13. Section 63.1515 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, and (b)(4); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(10).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1515  Notifications.

    (a) Initial notifications. The owner or operator must submit 
initial notifications to the permitting authority for major sources, or 
the Administrator for area sources as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *

[[Page 56753]]

    (b) * * *
    (4) The compliant operating parameter value or range established 
for each affected source or emission unit with supporting documentation 
and a description of the procedure used to establish the value (e.g., 
lime injection rate, total reactive chlorine flux injection rate, total 
reactive fluorine flux injection rate for uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces, afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet 
temperature), including the operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.1516 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph and (b)(1)(v);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(vii) and (b)(3)(i);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1516  Reports.

* * * * *
    (b) Excess emissions/summary report. The owner or operator of a 
major or area source must submit semiannual reports according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.10(e)(3). Except, the owner or operator must 
submit the semiannual reports within 60 days after the end of each 6-
month period instead of within 30 days after the calendar half as 
specified in Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(v). When no deviations of parameters 
have occurred, the owner or operator must submit a report stating that 
no excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) For each affected source choosing to demonstrate compliance 
during periods of startup and shutdown in accordance with Sec.  
63.1513(f)(1): ``During each startup and shutdown, no flux and no feed/
charge were added to the emission unit, and electricity, propane or 
natural gas were used as the sole source of heat or the emission unit 
was not heated.''
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated 
fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph 
(b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may 
submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent 
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's 
ERT Web site once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
* * * * *
    (c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual 
certifications of compliance required by 40 CFR part 70 or 71, the 
owner or operator of a major source subject to this subpart must 
certify continuing compliance based upon, but not limited to, the 
following conditions:
* * * * *
    (d) If there was a malfunction during the reporting period, the 
owner or operator must submit a report that includes the emission unit 
ID, monitor ID, pollutant or parameter monitored, beginning date and 
time of the event, end date and time of the event, cause of the 
deviation or exceedance and corrective action taken for each 
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused 
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. 
The report must include a list of the affected source or equipment, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any 
emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions, including, but not limited to, product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The report must also 
include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  63.1506(a)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8).
    (e) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section must be sent to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. If 
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (b) of this section in paper format.

0
15. Section 63.1517 is amended by:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(14);
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(16)(i); and
0
c. By adding paragraphs (b)(18) through (20).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1517  Records.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) If an aluminum scrap shredder is subject to visible emission 
observation requirements, records of all Method 9 observations, 
including records of any visible emissions during a 30-minute daily 
test or records of all ASTM D7520-13 observations (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14), including data sheets and all raw 
unaltered JPEGs used for opacity determination, with a brief 
explanation of the cause of the emissions, the time the emissions 
occurred, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and 
the corrective action taken.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If lime feeder setting is monitored, records of daily and 
monthly inspections of feeder setting, including records of any 
deviation of the feeder setting from the setting used in the 
performance test, with a brief

[[Page 56754]]

explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective action 
taken. If a lime feeder has been repaired or replaced, this action must 
be documented along with records of the new feeder calibration and the 
feed mechanism set points necessary to maintain the lb/hr feed rate 
operating limit. These records must be maintained on site and available 
upon request.
* * * * *
    (14) Records of annual inspections of emission capture/collection 
and closed vent systems or, if the alternative to the annual flow rate 
measurements is used, records of differential pressure; fan RPM or fan 
motor amperage; static pressure measurements; or duct centerline 
velocity using a hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 
pressure differential sensor, venturi pressure differential monitoring 
or orifice plate equipped with an associated thermocouple, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    (18) For any failure to meet an applicable standard, the owner or 
operator must maintain the following records;
    (i) Records of the emission unit ID, monitor ID, pollutant or 
parameter monitored, beginning date and time of the event, end date and 
time of the event, cause of the deviation or exceedance and corrective 
action taken.
    (ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1506(a)(5) and 
63.1520(a)(8), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its 
normal or usual manner of operation.
    (19) For each period of startup or shutdown for which the owner or 
operator chooses to demonstrate compliance for an affected source, the 
owner or operator must comply with (b)(19)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) To demonstrate compliance based on a feed/charge rate of zero, 
a flux rate of zero and the use of electricity, propane or natural gas 
as the sole sources of heating or the lack of heating, the owner or 
operator must submit a semiannual report in accordance with Sec.  
63.1516(b)(2)(vii) or maintain the following records:
    (A) The date and time of each startup and shutdown;
    (B) The quantities of feed/charge and flux introduced during each 
startup and shutdown; and
    (C) The types of fuel used to heat the unit, or that no fuel was 
used, during startup and shutdown; or
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance based on performance tests, the 
owner or operator must maintain the following records:
    (A) The date and time of each startup and shutdown;
    (B) The measured emissions in lb/hr or [mu]g/hr or ng/hr;
    (C) The measured feed/charge rate in tons/hr or Mg/hr from your 
most recent performance test associated with a production rate greater 
than zero, or the rated capacity of the affected source if no prior 
performance test data is available; and
    (D) An explanation to support that such conditions are considered 
representative startup and shutdown operations.
    (20) For owners or operators that choose to change furnace 
operating modes, the following records must be maintained:
    (i) The date and time of each change in furnace operating mode, and
    (ii)The nature of the change in operating mode (for example, group 
1 controlled furnace processing other than clean charge to group 2).
* * * * *
    16. Table 1 to Subpart RRR of part 63 is revised to read as 
follows:

[[Page 56755]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.016


[[Page 56756]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE15.017


[[Page 56757]]



0
17. Table 2 to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry ``All affected sources and emission units with an 
add-on air pollution control device;''
0
b. Revising the entry ``Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 
with afterburner and lime-injected fabric filter;''
0
c. Revising the entry ``In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric filter 
(including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing 
unit);''
0
d. Revising entry ``Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric filter 
(including those that are part of a secondary of aluminum processing 
unit);''
0
e. Revising the entry Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution 
controls (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum 
processing unit);
0
f. Revising footnote c to Table 2; and
0
g. Adding footnotes d and e to Table 2.
    The revisions and additions 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and        Emission capture   Design and install in
 emission units with an add-on   and collection     accordance with
 air pollution control device.   system.            ACGIH Guidelines;
                                                    \e\ operate in
                                                    accordance with OM&M
                                                    plan (sweat furnaces
                                                    may be operated
                                                    according to
                                                    63.1506(c)(4)).\b\
 
                              * * * * * * *
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/  Afterburner        Maintain average
 decoating kiln with             operating          temperature for each
 afterburner and lime-injected   temperature.       3-hr period at or
 fabric filter.                                     above average
                                                    operating
                                                    temperature during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
                                Afterburner        Operate in accordance
                                 operation.         with OM&M plan.\b\
                                Bag leak detector  Initiate corrective
                                 or.                action within 1-hr
                                                    of alarm and
                                                    complete in
                                                    accordance with the
                                                    OM&M plan; \b\
                                                    operate such that
                                                    alarm does not sound
                                                    more than 5% of
                                                    operating time in 6-
                                                    month period.
                                COM..............  Initiate corrective
                                                    action within 1-hr
                                                    of a 6-minute
                                                    average opacity
                                                    reading of 5% or
                                                    more and complete in
                                                    accordance with the
                                                    OM&M plan.\b\
                                Fabric filter      Maintain average
                                 inlet              fabric filter inlet
                                 temperature.       temperature for each
                                                    3-hr period at or
                                                    below average
                                                    temperature during
                                                    the performance test
                                                    +14 [deg]C (+25
                                                    [deg]F).
                                Lime injection     Maintain free-flowing
                                 rate.              lime in the feed
                                                    hopper or silo at
                                                    all times for
                                                    continuous injection
                                                    systems; maintain
                                                    feeder setting at or
                                                    above the level
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance test
                                                    for continuous
                                                    injection systems.
 
 
                              * * * * * * *
In-line fluxer with lime-       Bag leak detector  Initiate corrective
 injected fabric filter          or.                action within 1-hr
 (including those that are                          of alarm and
 part of a secondary aluminum                       complete in
 processing unit).                                  accordance with the
                                                    OM&M plan; \b\
                                                    operate such that
                                                    alarm does not sound
                                                    more than 5% of
                                                    operating time in 6-
                                                    month period.
                                COM..............  Initiate corrective
                                                    action within 1-hr
                                                    of a 6-minute
                                                    average opacity
                                                    reading of 5% or
                                                    more and complete in
                                                    accordance with the
                                                    OM&M plan.\b\
                                Lime injection     Maintain free-flowing
                                 rate.              lime in the feed
                                                    hopper or silo at
                                                    all times for
                                                    continuous injection
                                                    systems; maintain
                                                    feeder setting at or
                                                    above the level
                                                    established during
                                                    performance test for
                                                    continuous injection
                                                    systems.
                                Reactive flux      Maintain reactive
                                 injection rate.    flux injection rate
                                                    at or below rate
                                                    used during the
                                                    performance test for
                                                    each operating cycle
                                                    or time period used
                                                    in the performance
                                                    test.
 
 
 
                              * * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime-      Bag leak detector  Initiate corrective
 injected fabric filter          or.                action within 1-hr
 (including those that are                          of alarm; operate
 part of a secondary of                             such that alarm does
 aluminum processing unit).                         not sound more than
                                                    5% of operating time
                                                    in 6-month period;
                                                    complete corrective
                                                    action in accordance
                                                    with the OM&M
                                                    plan.\b\
                                COM..............  Initiate corrective
                                                    action within 1-hr
                                                    of a 6-minute
                                                    average opacity
                                                    reading of 5% or
                                                    more; complete
                                                    corrective action in
                                                    accordance with the
                                                    OM&M plan.\b\
                                Fabric filter      Maintain average
                                 inlet              fabric filter inlet
                                 temperature.       temperature for each
                                                    3-hour period at or
                                                    below average
                                                    temperature during
                                                    the performance test
                                                    +14[deg] C (+25[deg]
                                                    F).
                                Natural gas-       Operation of
                                 fired, propane-    associated capture/
                                 fired or           collection systems
                                 electrically       and APCD \b\ may be
                                 heated group 1     temporarily stopped.
                                 furnaces that      Operation of these
                                 will be idled      capture/collection
                                 for at least 24    systems and control
                                 hours.             devices must be
                                                    restarted before
                                                    feed/charge, flux or
                                                    alloying materials
                                                    are added to the
                                                    furnace.
                                Reactive flux      Maintain reactive
                                 injection rate.    flux injection rate
                                                    (kg/Mg) (lb/ton) at
                                                    or below rate used
                                                    during the
                                                    performance test for
                                                    each furnace cycle.

[[Page 56758]]

 
                                Lime injection     Maintain free-flowing
                                 rate.              lime in the feed
                                                    hopper or silo at
                                                    all times for
                                                    continuous injection
                                                    systems; maintain
                                                    feeder setting at or
                                                    above the level
                                                    established at
                                                    performance test for
                                                    continuous injection
                                                    systems.
                                Maintain molten    Operate sidewell
                                 aluminum level.    furnaces such that
                                                    the level of molten
                                                    metal is above the
                                                    top of the passage
                                                    between sidewell and
                                                    hearth during
                                                    reactive flux
                                                    injection, unless
                                                    the hearth is also
                                                    controlled.
                                Fluxing in         Add reactive flux
                                 sidewell furnace   only to the sidewell
                                 hearth.            of the furnace
                                                    unless the hearth is
                                                    also controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add-on  Reactive flux      Maintain the total
 air pollution controls          injection rate.    reactive chlorine
 (including those that are                          flux injection rate
 part of a secondary aluminum                       and total reactive
 processing unit).                                  fluorine injection
                                                    rate for each
                                                    operating cycle or
                                                    time period used in
                                                    the performance test
                                                    at or below the
                                                    average rate
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
                                Site-specific      Operate each furnace
                                 monitoring         in accordance with
                                 plan.\c\           the work practice/
                                                    pollution prevention
                                                    measures documented
                                                    in the OM&M plan and
                                                    within the parameter
                                                    values or ranges
                                                    established in the
                                                    OM&M plan.
                                Feed               Use only clean
                                 material(melting/  charge.
                                 holding furnace).
 
                              * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * *
\c\ Site-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces
  without add-on APCD must include a section in their OM&M plan that
  documents work practice and pollution prevention measures, including
  procedures for scrap inspection, by which compliance is achieved with
  emission limits and process or feed parameter-based operating
  requirements. This plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the
  monitoring plan must be developed in coordination with and approved by
  the permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for
  area sources.
\d\ APCD--Air pollution control device.
\e\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.


0
18. Table 3 to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry ``All affected sources and emission units with an 
add-on air pollution control device;''
0
b. Revising the entry ``All affected sources and emission units subject 
to production-based (lb/ton of feed/charge) emission limits;''
0
c. Revising the entry ``Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric filter;''
0
d. Revising the entry ``Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 
with afterburner and lime-injected fabric filter;''
0
e. Revising entry ``Dross-only furnace with fabric filter;''
0
f. Revising the entry ``Rotary dross cooler with fabric filter;''
0
g. Revising the entry ``In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric 
filter;''
0
h. Revising the entry ``Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric 
filter;''
0
i. Revise entry ``Group 1 furnace without add-on controls;''
0
j. Revise footnote c to Table 3;
0
k. Revising footnote d to Table 3; and
0
l. Adding footnote e to Table 3.
    The revisions and additions 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and        Emission capture   Annual inspection of
 emission units with an add-on   and collection     all emission
 air pollution control device.   system.            capture, collection,
                                                    and transport
                                                    systems to ensure
                                                    that systems
                                                    continue to operate
                                                    in accordance with
                                                    ACGIH Guidelines.\e\
                                                    Inspection includes
                                                    volumetric flow rate
                                                    measurements or
                                                    verification of a
                                                    permanent total
                                                    enclosure using EPA
                                                    Method 204.\d\
All affected sources and        Feed/charge        Record weight of each
 emission units subject to       weight.            feed/charge, weight
 production-based (lb/ton or                        measurement device
 gr/ton of feed/charge)                             or other procedure
 emission limits.\a\.                               accuracy of  1%; \b\
                                                    calibrate according
                                                    to manufacturer's
                                                    specifications, or
                                                    at least once every
                                                    6 months.
 
 
                              * * * * * * *
Aluminum scrap shredder with    Bag leak detector  Install and operate
 fabric filter.                  or.                in accordance with
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    operating
                                                    instructions.
                                COM or...........  Design and install in
                                                    accordance with PS-
                                                    1; collect data in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    subpart A of 40 CFR
                                                    part 63; determine
                                                    and record 6-minute
                                                    block averages.
                                VE...............  Conduct and record
                                                    results of 30-minute
                                                    daily test in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    Method 9 or ASTM
                                                    D7520-13.\e\
 
 

[[Page 56759]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/  Afterburner        Continuous
 decoating kiln with             operating          measurement device
 afterburner and lime-injected   temperature.       to meet
 fabric filter.                                     specifications in
                                                    Sec.
                                                    63.1510(g)(1);
                                                    record temperature
                                                    for each 15-minute
                                                    block; determine and
                                                    record 3-hr block
                                                    averages.
                                Afterburner        Annual inspection of
                                 operation.         afterburner internal
                                                    parts; complete
                                                    repairs in
                                                    accordance with the
                                                    OM&M plan.
                                Bag leak detector  Install and operate
                                 or.                in accordance with
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    operating
                                                    instructions.
                                COM..............  Design and Install in
                                                    accordance with PS-
                                                    1; collect data in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    subpart A of 40 CFR
                                                    part 63; determine
                                                    and record 6-minute
                                                    block averages.
                                Lime injection     For continuous
                                 rate.              injection systems,
                                                    inspect each feed
                                                    hopper or silo every
                                                    8 hours to verify
                                                    that lime is free
                                                    flowing; record
                                                    results of each
                                                    inspection. If
                                                    blockage occurs,
                                                    inspect every 4
                                                    hours for 3 days;
                                                    return to 8-hour
                                                    inspections if
                                                    corrective action
                                                    results in no
                                                    further blockage
                                                    during 3-day period,
                                                    record feeder
                                                    setting daily.
                                                    Verify monthly that
                                                    lime injection rate
                                                    is no less than 90
                                                    percent of the rate
                                                    used during the
                                                    compliance
                                                    demonstration test.
                                Fabric filter      Continuous
                                 inlet              measurement device
                                 temperature.       to meet
                                                    specifications in
                                                    Sec.
                                                    63.1510(h)(2);
                                                    record temperatures
                                                    in 15-minute block
                                                    averages; determine
                                                    and record 3-hr
                                                    block averages.
 
 
 
                              * * * * * * *
Dross-only furnace with fabric  Bag leak detector  Install and operate
 filter.                         or.                in accordance with
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    operating
                                                    instructions.
                                COM..............  Design and install in
                                                    accordance with PS-
                                                    1; collect data in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    subpart A of 40 CFR
                                                    part 63; determine
                                                    and record 6-minute
                                                    block averages.
                                Feed/charge        Record identity of
                                 material.          each feed/charge;
                                                    certify charge
                                                    materials every 6
                                                    months.
Rotary dross cooler with        Bag leak detector  Install and operate
 fabric filter.                  or.                in accordance with
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    operating
                                                    instructions.
                                COM..............  Design and install in
                                                    accordance with PS-
                                                    1; collect data in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    subpart A of 40 CFR
                                                    part 63; determine
                                                    and record 6-minute
                                                    block averages.
In-line fluxer with lime-       Bag leak detector  Install and operate
 injected fabric filter.         or.                in accordance with
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    operating
                                                    instructions.
                                COM..............  Design and install in
                                                    accordance with PS-
                                                    1; collect data in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    subpart A of 40 CFR
                                                    part 63; determine
                                                    and record 6-minute
                                                    block averages.
                                Reactive flux      Weight measurement
                                 injection rate.    device accuracy of
                                                    1%; \b\
                                                    calibrate according
                                                    to manufacturer's
                                                    specifications or at
                                                    least once every 6
                                                    months; record time,
                                                    weight and type of
                                                    reactive flux added
                                                    or injected for each
                                                    15-minute block
                                                    period while
                                                    reactive fluxing
                                                    occurs; calculate
                                                    and record total
                                                    reactive chlorine
                                                    flux injection rate
                                                    and the total
                                                    reactive fluorine
                                                    flux injection rate
                                                    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). For
                                                    solid flux added
                                                    intermittently,
                                                    record the amount
                                                    added for each
                                                    operating cycle or
                                                    time period used in
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
                                Lime injection     For continuous
                                 rate.              injection systems,
                                                    record feeder
                                                    setting daily and
                                                    inspect each feed
                                                    hopper or silo every
                                                    8 hrs to verify that
                                                    lime is free-
                                                    flowing; record
                                                    results of each
                                                    inspection. If
                                                    blockage occurs,
                                                    inspect every 4 hrs
                                                    for 3 days; return
                                                    to 8-hour
                                                    inspections if
                                                    corrective action
                                                    results in no
                                                    further blockage
                                                    during 3-day
                                                    period.\c\ Verify
                                                    monthly that the
                                                    lime injection rate
                                                    is no less than 90
                                                    percent of the rate
                                                    used during the
                                                    compliance
                                                    demonstration test.
 
 
 
                              * * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime-      Bag leak detector  Install and operate
 injected fabric filter.         or.                in accordance with
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    operating
                                                    instructions.
                                COM..............  Design and install in
                                                    accordance with PS-
                                                    1; collect data in
                                                    accordance with
                                                    subpart A of 40 part
                                                    CFR 63; determine
                                                    and record 6-minute
                                                    block averages.

[[Page 56760]]

 
                                Lime injection     For continuous
                                 rate.              injection systems,
                                                    record feeder
                                                    setting daily and
                                                    inspect each feed
                                                    hopper or silo every
                                                    8 hours to verify
                                                    that lime is free-
                                                    flowing; record
                                                    results of each
                                                    inspection. If
                                                    blockage occurs,
                                                    inspect every 4
                                                    hours for 3 days;
                                                    return to 8-hour
                                                    inspections if
                                                    corrective action
                                                    results in no
                                                    further blockage
                                                    during 3-day
                                                    period.\c\ Verify
                                                    monthly that the
                                                    lime injection rate
                                                    is no less than 90
                                                    percent of the rate
                                                    used during the
                                                    compliance
                                                    demonstration test.
                                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 chlorine
                                                    flux injection rate
                                                    and the total
                                                    reactive fluorine
                                                    flux injection rate
                                                    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). For
                                                    solid flux added
                                                    intermittently,
                                                    record the amount
                                                    added for each
                                                    operating cycle or
                                                    time period used in
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
                                Fabric filter      Continuous
                                 inlet              measurement device
                                 temperature.       to meet
                                                    specifications in
                                                    Sec.
                                                    63.1510(h)(2);
                                                    record temperatures
                                                    in 15-minute block
                                                    averages; determine
                                                    and record 3-hour
                                                    block averages.
                                Maintain molten    Maintain aluminum
                                 aluminum level     level operating log;
                                 in sidewell        certify every 6
                                 furnace.           months. If visual
                                                    inspection of molten
                                                    metal level is not
                                                    possible, use
                                                    physical measurement
                                                    methods.
Group 1 furnace without add-on  Fluxing in         Maintain flux
 controls.                       sidewell furnace   addition operating
                                 hearth.            log; certify every 6
                                                    months.
                                Reactive flux      Weight measurement
                                 injection rate.    device accuracy of
                                                    +1%; \b\ calibrate
                                                    according to
                                                    manufacturer's
                                                    specifications or at
                                                    least once every six
                                                    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.
                                                    For solid flux added
                                                    intermittently,
                                                    record the amount
                                                    added for each
                                                    operating cycle or
                                                    time period used in
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
                                OM&M plan          Demonstration of site-
                                 (approved by       specific monitoring
                                 permitting         procedures to
                                 agency).           provide data and
                                                    show correlation of
                                                    emissions across the
                                                    range of charge and
                                                    flux materials and
                                                    furnace operating
                                                    parameters.
                                Feed material      Record type of
                                 (melting/holding   permissible feed/
                                 furnace).          charge material;
                                                    certify charge
                                                    materials every 6
                                                    months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\c\ Permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for
  area sources may approve other alternatives including load cells for
  lime hopper weight, sensors for carrier gas pressure, or HCl
  monitoring devices at fabric filter outlet.
\d\ The frequency of volumetric flow rate measurements may be decreased
  to once every 5 years if daily differential pressure measures, daily
  fan RPM, or daily fan motor amp measurements are made in accordance
  with Sec.   63.1510(d)(2)(ii-iii). The frequency of annual
  verification of a permanent total enclosure may be decreased to once
  every 5 years if negative pressure measurements in the enclosure are
  made daily in accordance with Sec.   63.1510(d)(2)(iv). In lieu of
  volumetric flow rate measurements or verification of permanent total
  enclosure, sweat furnaces may demonstrate annually negative air flow
  into the sweat furnace opening in accordance with Sec.
  63.1510(d)(3).
\e\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.


0
19. Appendix A to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising entry Sec. Sec.  63.1(a)6)-(8);
0
b. Revising entry Sec.  63.1 (a)(9);
0
c. Revising entry Sec.  63.1(a)(10)-(14);
0
d. Revising entry Sec.  63.1(c)(3);
0
e. Revising entry Sec.  63.1(c)(4)-(5);
0
f. Revising entry Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(3);
0
g. Revising entry Sec.  63.4(a)(4);
0
h. Removing entry Sec.  63.4(a)(5);
0
i. Revising entry Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(6);
0
j. Adding entry Sec.  63.5(b)(5);
0
k. Adding entry Sec.  63.5(b)(6);
0
l. Revising entry Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(5);
0
m. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2);
0
n. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i);
0
o. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(1)ii)
0
p. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(2);
0
q. Revising entry Sec.  63.6(e)(3);
0
r. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(f);
0
s. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(f)(1);
0
t. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(f)(2);
0
u. Removing entries Sec.  63.6(h);
0
v. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(h)(1), Sec.  63.6(h)(2) and Sec.  
63.6(h)(3);
0
w. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(h)(4)-(9);
0
x. Revising entry Sec.  63.7(a)-(h);
0
y. Adding entries Sec.  63.7(b), Sec.  63.7(c) and Sec.  63.7(d);
0
z. Removing entry Sec.  63.7((e);
0
aa. Adding entries Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and Sec.  63.7(e)(2);
0
bb. Revising entry Sec.  63.7(g);
0
cc. Revising entry Sec.  63.7(h);
0
dd. Removing entry Sec.  63.8((c)(1)-(3);
0
ee. Adding entries Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i), Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii) and Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(iii);
0
ff. Revising entry Sec.  63.8 (c)(4)-(8);
0
gg. Revising entry Sec.  63.8(d);
0
hh. Adding entry Sec.  63.8(d)(3);
0
ii. Revising entry Sec.  63.9(b);
0
jj. Removing entry Sec.  63.10(b);
0
kk. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(b)(1);
0
ll. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv), (v);
0
mm. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi) to (xiv);
0
nn. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(b)(3);
0
oo. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(c)(15);
0
pp. Revising entry Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(5);
0
qq. Revising entry Sec.  63.11(a)-(b);

[[Page 56761]]

0
rr. Revising entry Sec.  63.14; and
0
ss. Adding entry Sec.  63.16.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

 Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability
                             to Subpart RRR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Citation               Applies to RRR            Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)...........  Yes.................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(9).......  No..................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12).....  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4).......  No..................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)...........  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2).......  Yes.................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(5).......  No..................  [Reserved].
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4).......  Yes.................
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)...........  No..................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)...........  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5).......  Yes.................  Sec.   63.1501
                                                     specifies dates.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)........  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1506(a)(5) for
                                                     general duty
                                                     requirement. Any
                                                     other cross
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.6(3)(1)(i) in
                                                     any other general
                                                     provision
                                                     referenced shall be
                                                     treated as a cross
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.1506(a)(5).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(ii)......  No..................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)...........  No..................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)...........  No..................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)...........  No..................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)...........  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)...........  No..................
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)...........  Yes.................
Sec.   63.6(h)(3)...........  No..................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(h)(4)-(9).......  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(a)..............  Yes.................  Except Sec.
                                                     63.1511 establishes
                                                     dates for initial
                                                     performance tests.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)...........  No..................
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)...........  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(g)(1)-(3).......  Yes.................  Except for Sec.
                                                     63.7(g)(2), which
                                                     is reserved.
Sec.   63.7(h)(1)-(5).......  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)........  No..................  See Sec.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).......  Yes.................   63.1506(a)(5) for
                                                     general duty
                                                     requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)......  No..................
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(8).......  Yes.................
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2).......  Yes.................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)...........  Yes, except for last
                               sentence, which
                               refers to an SSM
                               plan. SSM plans are
                               not required.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5).......  Yes.................  Except Sec.
                                                     63.9(b)(3) is
                                                     reserved.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)..........  Yes.................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii),  No..................
 (iv), (v).

[[Page 56762]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii),      Yes.................  Sec.   63.1517
 (vi)-(xiv).                                         includes additional
                                                     requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)..........  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(15).........  No..................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)-(5)......  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1516(d).
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.11(a)-(d).........  No..................  Flares not
                                                     applicable.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.14................  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.16................  No..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-21031 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P