Monday,

December
30,
2002
Part
IV
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Secondary
Aluminum
Production;
Final
Rule
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79808
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
FRL
 
7430
 
6]

RIN
2060
 
AE77
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Secondary
Aluminum
Production
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule;
amendments.

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

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

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
John
Schaefer,
U.
S.
EPA,
Minerals
and
Inorganic
Chemicals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C504
 
05),
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
0296,
electronic
mail
address,
schaefer.
john@
epa.
gov.

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

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

*
North
American
Information
Classification
System.

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.1500
of
the
final
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Docket.
We
have
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
2002
 
06
and
EDocket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0084.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
Electronic
Docket
Access.
You
may
access
the
final
rule
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
in
the
above
paragraph
entitled
``
Docket.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
amendments
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
these
actions
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
rules
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.
Judicial
Review.
Under
section
307(
b)(
1)
of
the
CAA,
judicial
review
of
these
final
rule
amendments
is
available
only
by
filing
a
petition
for
review
in
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
by
February
28,
2003.
Under
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B)
of
the
CAA,
only
an
objection
to
these
final
rule
amendments
that
was
raised
with
reasonable
specificity
during
the
period
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79809
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
for
public
comment
can
be
raised
during
judicial
review.
Moreover,
under
section
307(
b)(
2)
of
the
CAA,
the
requirements
established
by
these
final
rule
amendments
may
not
be
challenged
separately
in
any
civil
or
criminal
proceedings
brought
by
the
EPA
to
enforce
these
requirements.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
II.
Summary
of
the
Final
Amendments
A.
How
Are
We
Amending
the
Applicability
provisions?
B.
What
Amendments
Are
We
Making
Concerning
Control
of
Commonly­
Ducted
Units?
C.
How
Are
We
Amending
the
Procedures
for
Adoption
of
an
Operation,
Maintenance,
and
Monitoring
Plan?
D.
How
Are
We
Amending
the
Provisions
Concerning
Testing
of
Representative
Emission
Units?
E.
How
Are
We
Amending
the
Standards
for
Unvented
In­
Line
Flux
Boxes?
F.
How
Are
We
Clarifying
the
Control
Requirements
for
Sidewell
Furnaces?
G.
What
Other
Amendments
Are
We
Making?
III.
Response
to
Comments
on
Amendments
to
the
NESHAP
for
Secondary
Aluminum
Production
IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
et
seq.
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
E.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
J.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Background
On
March
23,
2000
(
63
FR
15690),
we
promulgated
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum
production
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
RRR).
Those
standards
were
established
under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA
to
reduce
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
from
major
and
area
sources.
After
promulgation
of
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum
production,
two
petitions
for
judicial
review
of
the
standards
were
filed
in
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.
The
first
of
these
petitions
was
filed
by
the
American
Foundrymen's
Society,
the
North
American
Die
Casting
Association,
and
the
Non­
Ferrous
Founders'
Society
(
American
Foundrymen's
Society
et
al.
v.
U.
S.
EPA,
Civ.
No
00
 
1208
(
D.
C.
Cir.)).
A
second
petition
for
judicial
review
was
filed
by
the
Aluminum
Association
(
The
Aluminum
Association
v.
U.
S.
EPA,
No.
00
 
1211
(
D.
C.
Cir.)).
There
was
no
significant
overlap
in
the
issues
presented
by
the
two
petitions,
and
the
cases
have
never
been
consolidated.
However,
we
did
thereafter
enter
into
separate
settlement
discussions
with
the
petitioners
in
each
case.
The
Foundrymen's
case
presented
issues
concerning
the
applicability
of
subpart
RRR
to
aluminum
die
casters
and
aluminum
foundries
which
were
considered
during
the
initial
rulemaking
development.
Because
aluminum
die
casters
and
foundries
sometimes
conduct
the
same
type
of
operations
as
other
secondary
aluminum
producers,
we
originally
intended
to
apply
the
standards
to
these
facilities,
but
only
in
those
instances
where
they
conduct
such
operations.
However,
representatives
of
the
affected
facilities
argued
that
they
should
not
be
considered
to
be
secondary
aluminum
producers
and
should
be
wholly
exempt
from
the
NESHAP.
During
the
rulemaking
development,
we
decided
to
permit
die
casters
and
foundries
to
melt
contaminated
internal
scrap
without
being
considered
to
be
secondary
aluminum
producers,
but
their
representatives
insisted
that
too
many
facilities
would
still
be
subject
to
the
NESHAP.
At
the
time
of
promulgation
of
the
standards,
in
response
to
a
request
by
the
die
casters
and
foundries,
we
announced
we
would
withdraw
the
standards
as
applied
to
die
casters
and
foundries
and
develop
separate
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards
for
these
facilities.
After
the
Foundrymen's
case
was
filed,
we
negotiated
an
initial
settlement
agreement
in
that
case
which
established
a
process
to
effectuate
our
commitment
to
develop
new
MACT
standards.
In
that
first
settlement,
EPA
agreed
that
it
would
stay
the
current
standards
for
these
facilities,
collect
comprehensive
data
to
support
alternate
standards,
and
promulgate
alternate
standards.
We
then
published
a
proposal
to
stay
the
standards
for
these
facilities
(
65
FR
55491,
September
14,
2000)
and
an
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
ANPR)
announcing
new
standards
for
these
facilities
(
65
FR
55489,
September
14,
2000).
During
the
subsequent
process
of
preparing
for
information
collection,
the
petitioners
concluded
that
the
existing
standards
were
not
as
sweeping
in
applicability
as
they
had
feared,
and
the
parties
then
agreed
to
explore
an
alternate
approach
to
settlement
based
on
clarifications
of
the
current
standards.
We
subsequently
reached
agreement
with
the
Foundrymen's
petitioners
on
a
new
settlement
which
entirely
supplanted
the
prior
settlement.
Accordingly,
we
published
a
notice
withdrawing
the
proposed
stay
of
the
existing
standards
for
aluminum
die
casters
and
foundries,
and
announcing
that
we
would
take
no
further
action
on
new
standards
for
those
facilities
(
67
FR
41138,
June
14,
2002).
In
the
new
settlement,
we
agreed
to
propose
some
changes
in
the
applicability
provisions
of
the
current
standards
concerning
aluminum
die
casters
and
foundries.
These
changes
included
permitting
customer
returns
without
paints
or
solid
coatings
to
be
treated
like
internal
scrap,
and
permitting
facilities
operated
by
the
same
company
at
different
locations
to
be
aggregated
for
purposes
of
determining
what
is
internal
scrap.
These
revisions
of
the
applicability
criteria
were
proposed
on
June
14,
2002
(
67
FR
41125)
and
are
being
adopted
in
today's
final
rule.
In
the
Foundrymen's
settlement,
we
also
agreed
to
defer
the
compliance
date
for
new
sources
constructed
or
reconstructed
at
existing
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
until
the
compliance
date
for
existing
sources,
so
that
the
rulemaking
on
general
applicability
issues
could
be
completed
first.
We
took
final
action
concerning
that
element
of
the
Foundrymen's
settlement
in
a
final
rule
published
on
September
24,
2002
(
67
FR
59787).
In
entirely
separate
discussions,
we
also
agreed
on
a
settlement
of
the
Aluminum
Association
case.
That
settlement
required
that
we
propose
a
number
of
substantive
clarifications
and
revisions
of
the
standards,
which
we
are
also
adopting
in
today's
final
rule.
The
Aluminum
Association
settlement
also
required
that
we
clarify
and
simplify
the
compliance
dates
for
the
standards,
and
defer
certain
early
compliance
obligations
which
might
otherwise
come
due
during
the
rulemaking
process.
We
took
final
action
concerning
those
compliance
issues
in
the
final
rule
published
on
September
24,
2002
(
67
FR
59787).

II.
Summary
of
the
Final
Amendments
A.
How
Are
We
Amending
the
Applicability
Provisions?

We
originally
intended
to
regulate
aluminum
die
casting
facilities,

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79810
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
aluminum
foundries,
and
aluminum
extruders
under
subpart
RRR
only
when
they
engage
in
the
same
types
of
operations
as
other
secondary
aluminum
producers.
We
decided
during
rulemaking
development
that
such
facilities
should
be
permitted
to
melt
their
own
internally­
generated
scrap
without
being
automatically
treated
the
same
as
secondary
aluminum
producers,
who
typically
process
contaminated
aluminum
scrap
obtained
from
other
sources.
Thus,
§
63.1500(
d)
in
the
current
standards
exempts
such
facilities
if:
 
The
facility
does
not
melt
any
materials
other
than
clean
charge
and
materials
generated
within
the
facility;
and
 
The
facility
does
not
operate
a
thermal
chip
dryer,
sweat
furnace,
or
scrap
dryer/
delacquering
kiln/
decoating
kiln.
However,
it
became
apparent
during
discussions
with
representatives
of
these
facilities
that
some
aluminum
die
casting
facilities
that
do
not
otherwise
engage
in
secondary
aluminum
operations
might
fall
within
the
rule
solely
because
they
melt
certain
materials
which
do
not
fit
clearly
within
the
phrase
``
materials
generated
within
the
facility.''
In
particular,
some
facilities
routinely
have
defective
or
incorrect
aluminum
castings
returned
by
customers
and
then
remelt
them.
In
addition,
some
companies
conduct
operations
at
multiple
locations
and
may
melt
scrap
initially
generated
at
one
location
at
a
different
location.
To
address
these
issues,
the
amendments
contain
new
applicability
language
which
permits
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
to
melt
customer
returns
which
contain
no
paint
or
other
solid
coatings
without
thereby
becoming
subject
to
the
standards.
The
amendments
also
include
a
new
definition
of
internal
scrap
which
includes
all
scrap
originating
from
aluminum
castings
or
extrusions
that
remains
at
all
times
within
the
control
of
the
company
that
produced
the
castings
or
extrusions.
We
do
not
regard
either
of
these
changes
in
the
applicability
language
as
materially
altering
our
original
intent
to
only
cover
those
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
who
conduct
secondary
aluminum
operations.
Under
the
new
language
we
are
adopting,
customer
returns
would
not
qualify
if
they
have
been
painted
or
are
contaminated
with
other
solid
coatings
because
these
castings
would
normally
require
prior
cleaning
to
avoid
excess
emissions.
Moreover,
scrap
obtained
from
an
external
source
does
not
qualify
unless
it
fits
within
the
definition
of
clean
charge.
The
amendments
also
change
the
existing
definitions
of
``
secondary
aluminum
production
facility,''
``
clean
charge,''
``
internal
runaround''
(
now
called
``
runaround
scrap''),
and
``
thermal
chip
dryer,''
and
add
new
definitions
of
``
customer
returns''
and
``
internal
scrap.''
In
the
aggregate,
these
revisions
clarify
the
circumstances
when
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
are
considered
to
be
secondary
aluminum
production
facilities
and,
thus,
within
the
applicability
of
the
rule.
We
are
also
adding
a
new
section
to
the
general
applicability
provisions
which
permits
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
which
are
area
sources
to
operate
thermal
chip
dryers
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
rule
without
automatically
subjecting
their
furnace
operations
to
the
rule.
We
are
making
this
change
to
eliminate
an
incentive
which
might
exist
for
small
facilities,
which
are
otherwise
outside
the
applicability
of
the
rule,
to
discontinue
their
use
of
thermal
chip
dryers.
As
long
as
such
chip
dryers
are
operated
in
conformity
with
the
rule,
we
think
their
use
will
promote
safety
and
lower
emissions
at
some
small
operations.
We
are
mindful
that
some
may
question
why
contaminated
internal
scrap
generated
by
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
should
be
treated
differently
than
external
scrap
with
similar
contamination
levels
which
is
processed
by
the
secondary
aluminum
industry.
We
stress
that
the
decision
we
made
during
the
original
secondary
aluminum
rulemaking
process
to
make
this
distinction
was
based
on
the
qualitative
differences
in
the
operations
being
undertaken
by
the
facilities
in
question,
rather
than
on
any
conclusions
regarding
the
likely
magnitude
of
emissions
from
such
operations.
Moreover,
we
think
that
the
additional
revisions
and
clarifications
of
applicability
for
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
which
we
have
made
are
reasonable
clarifications
and
fully
consistent
with
that
original
decision.

B.
What
Amendments
Are
We
Making
Concerning
Control
of
Commonly­
Ducted
Units?
The
current
rule
permits
secondary
aluminum
producers
to
combine
existing
group
1
furnaces
and
in­
line
fluxers
within
a
particular
facility
in
a
``
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit''
or
SAPU.
The
facility
can
then
demonstrate
compliance
by
determining
the
permissible
emissions
for
the
entire
SAPU
and
then
controlling
emissions
for
the
SAPU
to
that
level.
This
broader
definition
of
the
affected
source
which
must
be
controlled
gives
a
secondary
aluminum
production
facility
added
flexibility
in
fashioning
the
most
costeffective
control
strategies
which
will
meet
the
standards.
The
existing
rule
also
permits
new
group
1
furnaces
and
new
in­
line
fluxers
to
be
included
in
a
new
SAPU.
However,
it
does
not
afford
a
facility
the
latitude
to
combine
new
and
existing
sources
in
the
same
SAPU.
This
is
because
the
respective
standards
for
existing
sources
and
new
sources
are
separate
legal
requirements,
and
we
construe
the
CAA
to
require
that
standards
be
separately
applied
to
all
affected
units.
Because
the
standards
for
an
existing
SAPU
and
the
standards
for
a
new
SAPU
happen
to
be
identical
in
this
instance,
the
legal
constraints
on
combining
existing
emission
units
with
new
emission
units
have
been
understandably
frustrating
to
some
facilities.
Moreover,
in
some
facilities
it
may
make
the
most
sense
from
an
engineering
perspective
to
manifold
emissions
from
units
which
are
subject
to
differing
standards
to
the
same
emission
control
device.
In
order
to
help
facilities
meet
the
standards
in
the
most
efficient
and
cost­
effective
manner,
we
are
adding
additional
language
pertaining
to
commonly­
ducted
units.
The
new
language
reflects
two
different
approaches
to
this
problem.
A
facility
subject
to
the
standards
may
use
either
approach
or
both
approaches
if
it
wishes.
First,
the
amendments
add
a
new
paragraph
to
§
63.1505(
k)
for
SAPU.
The
new
paragraph
(
k)(
6)
allows
the
owner
or
operator
to
redesignate
any
existing
group
1
furnace
or
in­
line
fluxer
at
a
secondary
aluminum
processing
facility
as
a
new
emission
unit.
Any
redesignated
emission
unit
may
then
be
included
in
a
new
SAPU
at
that
facility.
Any
such
redesignation
(
which
requires
prior
approval
of
the
responsible
permitting
authority)
applies
only
under
subpart
RRR
and
is
irreversible.
Second,
we
are
also
adding
new
language
which
clarifies
the
procedures
by
which
units
which
are
subject
to
differing
standards
but
are
manifolded
to
the
same
control
device
can
demonstrate
compliance.
We
believe
that
this
new
language
is
not
required
to
permit
this
type
of
combined
compliance
demonstration,
but
we
think
it
will
give
useful
additional
guidance
to
permitting
authorities
in
establishing
sound
and
defensible
procedures
for
documenting
compliance
when
units
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79811
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
are
commonly­
ducted
but
subject
to
separate
standards.
We
are
adding
two
new
paragraphs
to
§
63.1511
pertaining
to
compliance
demonstrations
for
commonly­
ducted
units.
The
first
of
these
paragraphs
simply
confirms
other
provisions
of
the
rule
which
provide
that
aggregate
emissions
can
be
measured
to
demonstrate
compliance
for
all
emission
units
within
a
SAPU.
The
second
new
paragraph
covers
those
situations
where
commonlyducted
units
are
not
within
a
single
existing
or
new
SAPU.
In
this
instance,
the
following
criteria
apply:
 
Testing
must
be
designed
to
verify
that
each
affected
source
or
emission
unit
individually
satisfies
all
applicable
emission
requirements.
 
Emissions
must
be
tested
at
the
outlet
of
each
individual
affected
source
or
emission
unit
while
it
is
operating
under
the
highest
load
or
capacity
reasonably
expected
to
occur,
prior
to
the
point
that
the
emissions
are
combined
with
those
from
other
affected
sources
or
emission
units.
 
Combined
emissions
for
the
affected
sources
and
emission
units
must
be
tested
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
while
they
are
operating
simultaneously
under
the
highest
load
or
capacity
reasonably
expected
to
occur.
 
When
determining
compliance
for
a
commonly­
ducted
unit,
emissions
of
a
particular
pollutant
from
the
individual
unit
are
presumed
to
be
controlled
by
the
same
percentage
as
total
emissions
of
that
pollutant
from
all
commonlyducted
units.

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

In
the
final
rule
amendments
published
on
September
24,
2002
(
67
FR
59787),
we
clarified
the
timing
of
submission
of
an
operation,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
(
OM&
M)
plan
to
the
permitting
authority,
which
is
ambiguous
in
the
rule
as
initially
promulgated
on
March
23,
2000.
In
this
action,
we
are
clarifying
the
procedures
by
which
a
facility
submits
an
OM&
M
plan
to
the
permitting
authority
and
by
which
the
permitting
authority
can
require
any
necessary
revisions
of
the
plan.
Section
63.1505(
k)
of
the
existing
rule
refers
to
approval
of
an
OM&
M
plan
by
the
permitting
authority,
and
the
necessary
elements
of
an
OM&
M
plan
are
described
in
§
63.1510(
b),
but
the
procedures
for
submission
and
approval
of
the
plan
are
not
specified.
We
are
amending
the
existing
rule
to
correct
that
omission.
Under
the
amendments,
the
facility
is
required
to
certify
that
the
OM&
M
plan
it
is
submitting
complies
with
all
requirements
of
the
standards
and
to
comply
with
the
OM&
M
plan
as
submitted
to
the
permitting
authority,
unless
and
until
the
plan
is
revised.
If
the
permitting
authority
determines
that
any
revisions
of
the
plan
are
necessary
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
standards,
the
facility
is
required
to
promptly
make
all
necessary
revisions
and
resubmit
the
revised
plan.
If
the
facility
itself
determines
that
revisions
of
the
OM&
M
plan
are
necessary,
such
revisions
will
not
become
effective
until
the
owner
or
operator
submits
a
description
of
the
changes
and
a
revised
plan
incorporating
them
to
the
permitting
authority.
These
same
general
procedures
also
apply
to
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan,
which
is
one
element
of
the
OM&
M
plan.

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

E.
How
Are
We
Amending
the
Standards
for
Unvented
In­
Line
Flux
Boxes?
The
existing
rule
requires
that
all
inline
flux
boxes
meet
the
same
emission
standards
and
be
tested
in
the
same
manner.
Industry
representatives
have
argued
that
the
testing
procedures
in
the
rule
are
not
practicable
for
in­
line
flux
boxes
which
are
unvented
(
units
which
have
no
ventilation
ductwork
manifolded
to
an
outlet
or
emission
control
device).
Documenting
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
(
PM)
standard
for
such
units
might
require
construction
of
a
temporary
enclosure
around
the
unit
to
capture
and
measure
emissions.
Industry
representatives
have
also
argued
that
the
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
(
HCl)
and
PM
from
such
units
are
intrinsically
low,
but
we
believe
it
is
quite
possible
for
the
HCl
emissions
from
such
units
to
exceed
the
applicable
standards.
The
existing
rule
provides
a
procedure
by
which
a
facility
can
demonstrate
compliance
for
HCl
by
limiting
its
use
of
reactive
chlorine
flux
and
then
assuming
that
all
chlorine
used
is
emitted
as
HCl.
However,
because
of
the
greater
complexity
of
the
reactions
which
generate
PM
emissions,
there
is
no
analogous
procedure
for
PM.
While
we
do
not
agree
with
the
industry
that
all
emissions
from
unvented
in­
line
flux
boxes
are
intrinsically
low,
we
do
agree
that
the
physical
characteristics
of
these
units
and
the
nature
of
the
reactions
that
generate
PM
mean
that
we
can
reliably
conclude
that
an
unvented
unit
which
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
for
HCl
by
limiting
reactive
chlorine
flux
will
also
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
for
PM.
Therefore,
we
are
adding
new
language
to
§
63.1512(
h)
which
permits
a
facility
with
an
unvented
in­
line
flux
box,
which
elects
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
for
HCl
by
limiting
use
of
reactive
chlorine
flux,
to
infer
compliance
with
the
emission
standards
for
PM
as
well.
This
gives
facilities
an
alternative
to
testing
of
actual
emissions,
which
could
require
costly
construction
of
an
enclosure
around
the
unit
or
other
engineering
modifications.
If
a
facility
infers
compliance
with
the
PM
standard
in
this
manner,
the
facility
is
also
required
to
use
the
maximum
permissible
PM
emission
rate
for
the
flux
box
when
determining
the
total
emissions
for
any
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit
which
includes
the
flux
box.

F.
How
Are
We
Clarifying
the
Control
Requirements
for
Sidewell
Furnaces?
Industry
representatives
have
pointed
out
that
§
63.1506(
m)(
6)
includes
language
that
could
require
installation
of
an
additional
control
device
on
sidewell
furnaces
whenever
the
level
of
molten
metal
is
permitted
to
fall
below
the
passage
between
the
sidewell
and
the
hearth,
or
reactive
flux
is
added
in
the
hearth.
While
we
believe
that
a
control
device
will
sometimes
be
necessary
in
these
circumstances,
this
result
was
not
our
intent.
As
indicated
in
the
preamble
to
our
original
proposal,
we
believe
that
there
is
a
potential
for
additional
emissions
if
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79812
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
level
of
molten
metal
is
permitted
to
fall
below
the
top
of
the
passage
between
the
sidewell
and
the
hearth,
or
if
reactive
flux
is
added
in
the
hearth.
Therefore,
if
these
events
occur,
the
emissions
from
both
the
sidewell
and
the
hearth
must
be
captured
and
tested
in
order
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
standards.
If
the
emission
tests
show
that
a
control
device
is
necessary
to
attain
compliance,
it
must
be
installed.
We
are
revising
the
language
in
question
to
clarify
our
intent.
In
addition,
we
are
amending
§
63.1505(
i)(
7)
to
correct
an
erroneous
cross­
reference.
As
amended,
certain
sidewell
group
1
furnaces
are
required
to
meet
the
limits
in
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
through
(
4)
rather
than
(
j)(
1)
through
(
4).

G.
What
Other
Amendments
Are
We
Making?

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

III.
Response
to
Comments
on
Amendments
to
the
NESHAP
for
Secondary
Aluminum
Production
Comment:
One
commenter
opposes
the
proposed
revision
of
the
applicability
criteria
which
would
permit
facilities
to
melt
customer
returns.
This
commenter
argues
that
there
is
no
reason
to
conclude
that
melting
scrap
contaminated
with
oils
and
coating
applied
outside
the
facility
is
less
likely
to
result
in
dioxin
formation
than
melting
purchased
scrap
with
similar
contaminants.
Response:
In
considering
this
comment,
it
should
be
noted
that
those
customer
returns
which
are
contaminated
with
paints
or
other
solid
coatings
are
not
included
in
the
proposed
applicability
change.
In
any
case,
our
decision
to
permit
melting
of
certain
customer
returns
is
based
on
a
decision
to
treat
this
scrap
like
contaminated
internal
scrap
in
deciding
whether
a
facility
is
engaged
in
secondary
aluminum
production.
Our
decision
is
not
based
on
any
technical
assessment
regarding
the
likelihood
of
dioxin
formation.
Comment:
One
commenter
argues
that
the
amendments
would
allow
foundries
and
die
casters,
including
those
facilities
which
are
major
sources
of
HAP,
to
permanently
avoid
emission
limitations,
testing
requirements
and
monitoring
requirements.
Response:
We
recognize
that
some
aluminum
foundries
and
die
casters
may
have
the
potential
to
emit
more
than
10
tons
per
year
of
chlorine
(
a
listed
HAP),
but
we
do
not
agree
with
the
conclusion
of
the
commenter
that
the
rule
will
permit
such
facilities
to
escape
regulation
entirely.
We
note
that
the
same
argument
could
be
made
concerning
the
applicability
exclusion
in
the
existing
subpart
RRR.
Our
decision
to
exclude
certain
aluminum
die
casters,
foundries,
and
extruders
from
the
applicability
of
subpart
RRR
does
not
constitute
a
determination
that
such
facilities
should
be
entirely
unregulated.
We
believe
that
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
excluded
facilities
are
only
area
sources
of
HAP.
However,
if
there
is
any
aluminum
foundry
or
die
caster
which
would
be
entirely
exempt
under
the
revised
applicability
provisions
for
the
secondary
aluminum
source
category
and
which
also
has
the
potential
to
emit
major
source
quantities
of
HAP,
a
separate
MACT
standard
may
ultimately
be
necessary.
If
the
commenter
identifies
any
facility
which
is
a
major
source
of
HAP
but
is
not
included
in
any
listed
source
category,
EPA
has
authority
to
augment
the
source
category
list
as
provided
in
CAA
section
112(
c)(
5).
Comment:
One
commenter
opposes
the
provisions
permitting
redesignation
of
existing
emission
units
as
new,
on
the
basis
that
uncontrolled
or
poorly
controlled
new
emission
units
could
comply
by
averaging
their
emissions
with
well­
controlled
redesignated
older
units.
Response:
We
believe
the
commenter
has
misconstrued
the
effect
of
the
new
provisions.
The
existing
rule
provides
that
certain
types
of
emission
units
may
be
included
within
a
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit
or
SAPU,
which
is
the
affected
source
to
which
the
standards
apply.
We
construe
the
statute
to
prohibit
combining
new
emission
units
with
existing
emission
units.
The
final
rule
amendments
pursuant
to
the
settlement
provide
that
existing
emission
units
may
be
permanently
redesignated
as
new.
Because
the
standard
for
an
existing
SAPU
and
the
standard
for
a
new
SAPU
are
identical,
this
procedure
will
not
alter
the
basic
control
requirements
which
apply
to
the
redesignated
units.
The
final
rule
amendments
also
establish
a
procedure
under
which
multiple
units
can
be
ducted
to
the
same
control
device,
but
compliance
will
still
be
separately
demonstrated
for
each
commonly­
ducted
unit.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
there
are
no
data
to
support
the
change
in
residence
time
requirements
for
sweat
furnace
afterburners.
Response:
We
established
the
emission
limits
for
sweat
furnaces
based
on
limited
performance
test
data.
The
EPA
established
the
work
practice
standards
for
sweat
furnaces
on
the
basis
of
conditions
which
were
thought
to
have
existed
during
these
performance
tests.
Upon
review
of
the
performance
test
data,
we
determined
incorrect
dimensional
data
provided
in
the
test
report
led
to
an
incorrect
calculation
of
afterburner
residence
time.
The
amendments
do
not
make
the
emission
limits
less
stringent
but
only
alter
the
work
practice
requirements
which
are
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
We
have
no
further
sweat
furnace
emission
data
and
the
commenter
has
not
provided
any
such
data.
Comment:
The
same
commenter
who
questioned
the
technical
basis
for
the
decreased
residence
time
for
sweat
furnaces
argues
that
EPA
is
obligated
to
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79813
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
consider
longer
residence
times
as
a
``
beyond
the
floor
control
option.''
Response:
We
are
not
aware
of
any
technologies
which
could
decrease
the
HAP
emission
rate
for
sweat
furnaces
beyond
the
floor
technology
and
have
no
data
upon
which
to
evaluate
any
such
technologies.
While
an
increase
in
the
residence
time
for
the
floor
technology
may
increase
the
overall
control
efficiency
by
a
marginal
amount,
no
data
are
available
to
make
this
determination.
Comment:
One
commenter
requests
that
the
amendments
include
a
work
practice
standard
for
thermal
chip
dryers,
analogous
to
the
work
practice
requirement
for
sweat
furnaces.
Response:
The
amendments
requested
by
the
commenter
are
outside
of
the
scope
of
these
amendments
and
cannot
be
considered
in
this
rulemaking.
In
any
event,
the
commenter
supplied
no
test
data
in
support
of
a
work
practice
standard
for
thermal
chip
dryers,
and
EPA
has
no
data
that
would
support
the
suggested
change
in
the
standard.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Review
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
OMB
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
and
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
in
the
existing
rule
(
subpart
RRR)
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
and
assigned
OMB
control
No.
2060
 
0433.
This
action
does
not
change
the
information
collection
requirements
in
subpart
RRR,
but
does
reduce
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
the
rule.
An
amended
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
1894.01),
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
from
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov.
icr.
The
information
requirements
in
the
existing
rule
include
mandatory
notifications,
records,
and
reports
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A).
These
information
requirements
are
needed
to
confirm
the
compliance
status
of
major
sources,
to
identify
any
nonmajor
sources
not
subject
to
the
standards
and
any
new
or
reconstructed
sources
subject
to
the
standards,
and
to
confirm
that
emission
control
devices
are
being
properly
operated
and
maintained.
Based
on
the
recorded
and
reported
information,
EPA
can
decide
which
facilities,
records,
or
processes
should
be
inspected.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
under
section
114
of
the
CAA.
All
information
submitted
to
EPA
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
will
be
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
Under
the
amendments,
fewer
facilities
would
be
subject
to
the
testing,
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements.
For
this
reason,
the
overall
burden
estimate
for
the
existing
rule
will
be
reduced
by
approximately
20
percent.
As
a
result
of
these
amendments,
the
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
rule)
is
estimated
to
decrease
by
28,000
labor
hours
per
year
and
$
8.5
million
per
year.
Total
capital
costs
associated
with
monitoring
requirements
over
the
3­
year
period
of
the
ICR
remain
unchanged
at
an
estimated
$
1.3
million;
this
estimate
includes
the
capital
and
startup
costs
associated
with
installation
of
monitoring
equipment.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information;
process
and
maintain
information
and
disclose
and
provide
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
et
seq.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
these
final
rule
amendments.
The
EPA
has
also
determined
that
these
final
rule
amendments
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
amendments
on
small
entities,
a
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
whose
parent
company
has
fewer
than
750
employees;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
or
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
notfor
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
amendments
on
small
entities,
the
EPA
has
concluded
that
this
action
will
not
create
any
new
costs
for
affected
firms,
large
or
small.
In
fact,
the
amendments
will
reduce
the
economic
impact
on
small
businesses
because
of
the
revised
applicability
requirements
for
die
casters,
extruders,
and
foundries.
Because
these
plants
will
not
incur
any
significant
costs
or
economic
impact,
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
these
final
rule
amendments.
After
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79814
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
considering
the
economic
impact
of
today's
final
rule
amendments
on
small
entities,
the
EPA
has
concluded
that
they
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
the
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
costbenefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
the
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
leastcostly
most
cost­
effective,
or
leastburdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
the
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
these
final
rule
amendments
do
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
to
either
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
No
incremental
costs
are
attributable
to
these
amendments.
In
addition,
the
amendments
do
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
they
contain
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
the
requirements
of
the
UMRA
do
not
apply
to
these
amendments.

E.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
The
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law
unless
the
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
These
rule
amendments
do
not
have
federalism
implications.
They
do
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
None
of
the
affected
plants
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
these
rule
amendments.

F.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.''
These
rule
amendments
do
not
have
tribal
implications.
They
do
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
No
tribal
governments
own
plants
subject
to
the
existing
rule
or
today's
amendments.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
these
rule
amendments.

G.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
we
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives.
We
interpret
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
These
final
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
they
are
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.

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

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Public
Law
104
 
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79815
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impracticable.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
such
as
material
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
requires
Federal
agencies
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
EPA's
response
to
the
NTTAA
requirements
are
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
(
65
FR
15690).
These
amendments
do
not
change
the
required
methods
or
procedures,
but
would
expand
provisions
for
the
use
of
alternative
methods.
If
a
plant
wishes
to
use
an
alternative
method
other
than
those
identified
in
the
existing
rule,
the
owner
or
operator
may
submit
an
application
to
EPA
according
to
the
procedures
described
in
the
existing
rule.

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

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

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

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

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.

Subpart
RRR
 
[
AMENDED]

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

§
63.1500
Applicability.
(
a)
The
requirements
of
this
subpart
apply
to
the
owner
or
operator
of
each
secondary
aluminum
production
facility
as
defined
in
§
63.1503.
*
*
*
*
*
(
f)
An
aluminum
die
casting
facility,
aluminum
foundry,
or
aluminum
extrusion
facility
shall
be
considered
to
be
an
area
source
if
it
does
not
emit,
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
considering
controls,
10
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
single
listed
HAP
or
25
tons
per
year
of
any
combination
of
listed
HAP
from
all
emission
sources
which
are
located
in
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control,
without
regard
to
whether
or
not
such
sources
are
regulated
under
this
subpart
or
any
other
subpart.
In
the
case
of
an
aluminum
die
casting
facility,
aluminum
foundry,
or
aluminum
extrusion
facility
which
is
an
area
source
and
is
subject
to
regulation
under
this
subpart
only
because
it
operates
a
thermal
chip
dryer,
no
furnace
operated
by
such
a
facility
shall
be
deemed
to
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart
if
it
melts
only
clean
charge,
internal
scrap,
or
customer
returns.
3.
Section
63.1503
is
amended
by:
a.
Adding
in
alphabetical
order
new
definitions
for
the
terms
``
aluminum
scrap,''
``
customer
returns,''
``
internal
scrap,''
and
``
runaround
scrap'';
and
b.
Revising
definitions
for
the
terms
``
clean
charge,''
``
cover
flux,''
``
group
1
furnace,''
``
group
2
furnace,''
``
melting/
holding
furnace,''
``
reactive
fluxing,''
``
scrap
dryer/
delacquering
kiln/
decoating
kiln,''
``
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit
(
SAPU),''
``
secondary
aluminum
production
facility,''
and
``
thermal
chip
dryer.''
The
additions
and
revisions
read
as
follows:

§
63.1503
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*
Aluminum
scrap
means
fragments
of
aluminum
stock
removed
during
manufacturing
(
i.
e.,
machining),
manufactured
aluminum
articles
or
parts
rejected
or
discarded
and
useful
only
as
material
for
reprocessing,
and
waste
and
discarded
material
made
of
aluminum.
*
*
*
*
*
Clean
charge
means
furnace
charge
materials
including
molten
aluminum,
T­
bar,
sow,
ingot,
billet,
pig,
alloying
elements,
aluminum
scrap
known
by
the
owner
or
operator
to
be
entirely
free
of
paints,
coatings,
and
lubricants;
uncoated/
unpainted
aluminum
chips
that
have
been
thermally
dried
or
treated
by
a
centrifugal
cleaner;
aluminum
scrap
dried
at
343
°
C
(
650
°
F)
or
higher;
aluminum
scrap
delacquered/
decoated
at
482
°
C
(
900
°
F)
or
higher,
and
runaround
scrap.
Cover
flux
means
salt
added
to
the
surface
of
molten
aluminum
in
a
group
1
or
group
2
furnace,
without
agitation
of
the
molten
aluminum,
for
the
purpose
of
preventing
oxidation.
Customer
returns
means
any
aluminum
product
which
is
returned
by
a
customer
to
the
aluminum
company
that
originally
manufactured
the
product
prior
to
resale
of
the
product
or
further
distribution
in
commerce,
and
which
contains
no
paint
or
other
solid
coatings
(
i.
e.,
lacquers).
*
*
*
*
*
Group
1
furnace
means
a
furnace
of
any
design
that
melts,
holds,
or
processes
aluminum
that
contains
paint,
lubricants,
coatings,
or
other
foreign
materials
with
or
without
reactive
fluxing,
or
processes
clean
charge
with
reactive
fluxing.
Group
2
furnace
means
a
furnace
of
any
design
that
melts,
holds,
or
processes
only
clean
charge
and
that
performs
no
fluxing
or
performs
fluxing
using
only
nonreactive,
non­
HAPcontaining
non­
HAP­
generating
gases
or
agents.
*
*
*
*
*
Internal
scrap
means
all
aluminum
scrap
regardless
of
the
level
of
contamination
which
originates
from
castings
or
extrusions
produced
by
an
aluminum
die
casting
facility,
aluminum
foundry,
or
aluminum
extrusion
facility,
and
which
remains
at
all
times
within
the
control
of
the
company
that
produced
the
castings
or
extrusions.
*
*
*
*
*
Melting/
holding
furnace
means
a
group
1
furnace
that
processes
only
clean
charge,
performs
melting,
holding,
and
fluxing
functions,
and
does
not
transfer
molten
aluminum
to
or
from
another
furnace
except
for
purposes
of
alloy
changes,
off­
specification
product
drains,
or
maintenance
activities.
*
*
*
*
*
Reactive
fluxing
means
the
use
of
any
gas,
liquid,
or
solid
flux
(
other
than
cover
flux)
that
results
in
a
HAP
emission.
Argon
and
nitrogen
are
not
reactive
and
do
not
produce
HAP.
*
*
*
*
*

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79816
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Runaround
scrap
means
scrap
materials
generated
on­
site
by
aluminum
casting,
extruding,
rolling,
scalping,
forging,
forming/
stamping,
cutting,
and
trimming
operations
and
that
do
not
contain
paint
or
solid
coatings.
Uncoated/
unpainted
aluminum
chips
generated
by
turning,
boring,
milling,
and
similar
machining
operations
may
be
clean
charge
if
they
have
been
thermally
dried
or
treated
by
a
centrifugal
cleaner,
but
are
not
considered
to
be
runaround
scrap.
Scrap
dryer/
delacquering
kiln/
decoating
kiln
means
a
unit
used
primarily
to
remove
various
organic
contaminants
such
as
oil,
paint,
lacquer,
ink,
plastic,
and/
or
rubber
from
aluminum
scrap
(
including
used
beverage
containers)
prior
to
melting.
Secondary
aluminum
processing
unit
(
SAPU).
An
existing
SAPU
means
all
existing
group
1
furnaces
and
all
existing
in­
line
fluxers
within
a
secondary
aluminum
production
facility.
Each
existing
group
1
furnace
or
existing
in­
line
fluxer
is
considered
an
emission
unit
within
a
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit.
A
new
SAPU
means
any
combination
of
individual
group
1
furnaces
and
in­
line
fluxers
within
a
secondary
aluminum
processing
facility
which
either
were
constructed
or
reconstructed
after
February
11,
1999,
or
have
been
permanently
redesignated
as
new
emission
units
pursuant
to
§
63.1505(
k)(
6).
Each
of
the
group
1
furnaces
or
in­
line
fluxers
within
a
new
SAPU
is
considered
an
emission
unit
within
that
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit.
Secondary
aluminum
production
facility
means
any
establishment
using
clean
charge,
aluminum
scrap,
or
dross
from
aluminum
production,
as
the
raw
material
and
performing
one
or
more
of
the
following
processes:
scrap
shredding,
scrap
drying/
delacquering/
decoating,
thermal
chip
drying,
furnace
operations
(
i.
e.,
melting,
holding,
sweating,
refining,
fluxing,
or
alloying),
recovery
of
aluminum
from
dross,
inline
fluxing,
or
dross
cooling.
A
secondary
aluminum
production
facility
may
be
independent
or
part
of
a
primary
aluminum
production
facility.
For
purposes
of
this
subpart,
aluminum
die
casting
facilities,
aluminum
foundries,
and
aluminum
extrusion
facilities
are
not
considered
to
be
secondary
aluminum
production
facilities
if
the
only
materials
they
melt
are
clean
charge,
customer
returns,
or
internal
scrap,
and
if
they
do
not
operate
sweat
furnaces,
thermal
chip
dryers,
or
scrap
dryers/
delacquering
kilns/
decoating
kilns.
The
determination
of
whether
a
facility
is
a
secondary
aluminum
production
facility
is
only
for
purposes
of
this
subpart
and
any
regulatory
requirements
which
are
derived
from
the
applicability
of
this
subpart,
and
is
separate
from
any
determination
which
may
be
made
under
other
environmental
laws
and
regulations,
including
whether
the
same
facility
is
a
``
secondary
metal
production
facility''
as
that
term
is
used
in
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7479(
1)
and
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
1)(
i)(
A)
(``
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality'').
*
*
*
*
*
Thermal
chip
dryer
means
a
device
that
uses
heat
to
evaporate
oil
or
oil/
water
mixtures
from
unpainted/
uncoated
aluminum
chips.
Pre­
heating
boxes
or
other
dryers
which
are
used
solely
to
remove
water
from
aluminum
scrap
are
not
considered
to
be
thermal
chip
dryers
for
purposes
of
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
4.
Section
63.1505
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
the
section
heading;
b.
Revising
paragraph
(
f)(
1);
c.
Revising
paragraph
(
i)(
7);
d.
Republishing
the
introductory
text
of
paragraph
(
k)(
2)
and
revising
Equation
2;
and
e.
Adding
new
paragraph
(
k)(
6).
The
revisions
and
addition
read
as
follows:

§
63.1505
Emission
standards
for
affected
sources
and
emission
units.

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

L
L
T
T
c
ti
ti
i
n
ti
i
n
HCl
HCl
=
×
(
)

(
)
=

=
 

 
1
1
(
Eq.
2)

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

§
63.1506
Operating
requirements.

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

§
63.1510
Monitoring
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
Operation,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
(
OM&
M)
plan.
*
*
*
The
plan
must
be
accompanied
by
a
written
certification
by
the
owner
or
operator
that
the
OM&
M
plan
satisfies
all
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
ER30DE02.001</
MATH>
79817
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
requirements
of
this
section
and
is
otherwise
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.
The
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
all
of
the
provisions
of
the
OM&
M
plan
as
submitted
to
the
permitting
authority,
unless
and
until
the
plan
is
revised
in
accordance
with
the
following
procedures.
If
the
permitting
authority
determines
at
any
time
after
receipt
of
the
OM&
M
plan
that
any
revisions
of
the
plan
are
necessary
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
this
section
or
this
subpart,
the
owner
or
operator
must
promptly
make
all
necessary
revisions
and
resubmit
the
revised
plan.
If
the
owner
or
operator
determines
that
any
other
revisions
of
the
OM&
M
plan
are
necessary,
such
revisions
will
not
become
effective
until
the
owner
or
operator
submits
a
description
of
the
changes
and
a
revised
plan
incorporating
them
to
the
permitting
authority.
Each
plan
must
contain
the
following
information:
*
*
*
*
*
(
o)
Group
1
furnace
without
add­
on
air
pollution
control
devices.
*
*
*
(
1)
The
owner
or
operator
must
develop,
in
consultation
with
the
responsible
permitting
authority,
a
written
site­
specific
monitoring
plan.
The
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
permitting
authority
as
part
of
the
OM&
M
plan.
The
sitespecific
monitoring
plan
must
contain
sufficient
procedures
to
ensure
continuing
compliance
with
all
applicable
emission
limits
and
must
demonstrate,
based
on
documented
test
results,
the
relationship
between
emissions
of
PM,
HCl,
and
D/
F
and
the
proposed
monitoring
parameters
for
each
pollutant.
Test
data
must
establish
the
highest
level
of
PM,
HCl,
and
D/
F
that
will
be
emitted
from
the
furnace.
This
may
be
determined
by
conducting
performance
tests
and
monitoring
operating
parameters
while
charging
the
furnace
with
feed/
charge
materials
containing
the
highest
anticipated
levels
of
oils
and
coatings
and
fluxing
at
the
highest
anticipated
rate.
If
the
permitting
authority
determines
that
any
revisions
of
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
are
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
section
or
this
subpart,
the
owner
or
operator
must
promptly
make
all
necessary
revisions
and
resubmit
the
revised
plan
to
the
permitting
authority.
*
*
*
*
*
(
w)
Alternative
monitoring
methods.
If
an
owner
or
operator
wishes
to
use
an
alternative
monitoring
method
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
any
emission
standard
in
this
subpart,
other
than
those
alternative
monitoring
methods
which
may
be
authorized
pursuant
to
§
63.1510(
j)(
5)
and
§
63.1510(
v),
the
owner
or
operator
may
submit
an
application
to
the
Administrator.
Any
such
application
will
be
processed
according
to
the
criteria
and
procedures
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
7.
Section
63.1511
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
f)
and
adding
paragraphs
(
h)
and
(
i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.1511
Performance
test/
compliance
demonstration
general
requirements.

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

§
63.1512
Performance
test/
compliance
demonstration
requirements
and
procedures.

*
*
*
*
*
(
h)
In­
line
fluxer.
(
1)
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
in­
line
fluxer
that
uses
reactive
flux
materials
must
conduct
a
performance
test
to
measure
emissions
of
HCl
and
PM
or
otherwise
demonstrate
compliance
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
h)(
2)
of
this
section.
If
the
in­
line
fluxer
is
equipped
with
an
add­
on
control
device,
the
emissions
must
be
measured
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79818
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
2)
The
owner
or
operator
may
choose
to
limit
the
rate
at
which
reactive
chlorine
flux
is
added
to
an
in­
line
fluxer
and
assume,
for
the
purposes
of
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
SAPU
emission
limit,
that
all
chlorine
in
the
reactive
flux
added
to
the
in­
line
fluxer
is
emitted
as
HCl.
Under
these
circumstances,
the
owner
or
operator
is
not
required
to
conduct
an
emission
test
for
HCl.
If
the
owner
or
operator
of
any
in­
line
flux
box
which
has
no
ventilation
ductwork
manifolded
to
any
outlet
or
emission
control
device
chooses
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
HCl
by
limiting
use
of
reactive
chlorine
flux
and
assuming
that
all
chlorine
in
the
flux
is
emitted
as
HCl,
compliance
with
the
HCl
limit
shall
also
constitute
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
PM,
and
no
separate
emission
test
for
PM
is
required.
In
this
case,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
unvented
in­
line
flux
box
must
utilize
the
maximum
permissible
PM
emission
rate
for
the
inline
flux
boxes
when
determining
the
total
emissions
for
any
SAPU
which
includes
the
flux
box.
*
*
*
*
*
9.
Section
63.1515
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
8)
and
(
b)(
9)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.1515
Notifications.

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

§
63.1517
Records.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
11)
For
each
in­
line
fluxer
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
has
certified
that
no
reactive
flux
was
used:
(
i)
Operating
logs
which
establish
that
no
source
of
reactive
flux
was
present
at
the
in­
line
fluxer;
(
ii)
Labels
required
pursuant
to
§
63.1506(
b)
which
establish
that
no
reactive
flux
may
be
used
at
the
in­
line
fluxer;
or
(
iii)
Operating
logs
which
document
each
flux
gas,
agent,
or
material
used
during
each
operating
cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
(
16)
*
*
*
(
ii)
OM&
M
plan;
and
*
*
*
*
*
11.
Table
2
to
subpart
RRR
is
amended
under
the
entry
for
``
Group
1
furnace
with
lime­
injected
fabric
filter
(
including
those
that
are
part
of
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit)''
by
revising
in
column
2
the
entry
``
Fabric
filter
inlet
temperature''
to
read
as
follows:

TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
RRR
OF
PART
63.
 
SUMMARY
OF
OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
AFFECTED
SOURCES
AND
EMISSION
UNITS
Affected
source/
emission
unit
Monitor
type/
operation/
process
Operating
requirements
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Group
1
furnace
with
lime­
injected
fabric
filter
filter
(
including
those
that
are
part
of
a
secondary
aluminum
processing
unit).
*
*
*
*
*
Fabric
filter
inlet
temperature
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Maintain
average
fabric
filter
inlet
temperature
for
each
3­
hour
period
at
or
below
average
temperature
during
the
performance
test
+
14
°
C
(+
25
°
F).
*
*
*
*
*

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

TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
RRR
OF
PART
63.
 
SUMMARY
OF
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
AFFECTED
SOURCES
AND
EMISSION
UNITS
Affected
source/
emission
unit
Monitor
type/
Operation/
Process
Monitoring
requirements
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Group
1
furnace
with
lime­
injected
fabric
filter
.................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reactive
flux
injection
rate
*
*
*
*
*
Weight
measurement
device
accuracy
of
±
1%
b;
calibrate
every
3
months;
record
weight
and
type
of
reactive
flux
added
or
injected
for
each
15­
minute
block
period
while
reactive
fluxing
occurs;
calculate
and
record
total
reactive
flux
injection
rate
for
each
operating
cycle
or
time
period
used
in
performance
test;
or
Alternative
flux
injection
rate
determination
procedure
per
§
63.1510(
j)(
5).

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
79819
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
250
/
Monday,
December
30,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
RRR
OF
PART
63.
 
SUMMARY
OF
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
AFFECTED
SOURCES
AND
EMISSION
UNITS
 
Continued
Affected
source/
emission
unit
Monitor
type/
Operation/
Process
Monitoring
requirements
*
*
*
*
*
Group
1
furnace
without
add­
on
controls
.........................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Feed
material
(
melting/
holding
furnace).
Record
type
of
permissible
feed/
charge
material;
certify
charge
materials
every
6
months.

*
*
*
*
*

13.
Appendix
A
to
subpart
RRR
is
amended
under
the
entry
for
``
§
63.14''
by
revising
in
column
2
the
entry
for
``
Incorporation
by
reference''
to
read
as
follows:

APPENDIX
A
TO
SUBPART
RRR
OF
PART
63.
 
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
APPLICABILITY
TO
SUBPART
RRR
Citation
Requirement
Applies
to
RRR
Comment
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
§
63.14
........................
Incorporation
by
Reference
Yes
.............................
Chapters
3
and
5
of
ACGIH
Industrial
Ventilation
Manual
for
capture/
collection
systems;
and
Interim
Procedures
for
Estimating
Risk
Associated
with
Exposure
to
Mixtures
of
Chlorinated
Dibenzofurans
(
CDDs
and
CDFs)
and
1989
Update
(
incorporated
by
reference
in
§
63.1502).

*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
32779
Filed
12
 
27
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
15:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30DER3.
SGM
30DER3
