[Federal Register: March 23, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15689-15737]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23mr00-20]

[[Page 15689]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

[[Page 15690]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6513-8]
RIN 2060-AE77


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources at
secondary aluminum production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) emitted by the facilities that would be regulated by this final
rule include organic HAPs, inorganic gaseous HAPs (hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen fluoride, and chlorine), and particulate HAP metals. Some of
these pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, are
known or suspected carcinogens and all can cause toxic effects in
humans following sufficient exposure. Emissions of other pollutants
include particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.
    These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and are based on the Administrator's determination that secondary
aluminum production facilities are major sources of HAP emissions and
emit several of the HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA from the
various process operations found within the industry. The final rule
will provide protection to the public health by requiring secondary
aluminum production facilities to meet emission standards reflecting
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
Secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources would be
subject to limitations on emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) only.
Implementation of this rule will reduce emissions of all identified
pollutants by about 14,200 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (15,600 tons per
year (tpy)) and HAP emissions would be reduced by about 11,300 Mg/yr
(12,400 tpy).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective March 23, 2000. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 23,
2000.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-61, containing information
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,
telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above address
in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in the
Supplementary Information section of this preamble. For information
concerning the analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Mr.
Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-1084, facsimile number (919) 541-5600,
electronic mail address ``santiago.juan@epamail.epa.gov.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are secondary
aluminum production facilities using clean charge, post-consumer scrap,
aluminum scrap, ingots, foundry returns, dross, or molten metal as the
raw material, and performing one or more of the following processes:
aluminum scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, thermal
chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, refining,
fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. The EPA
identified an estimated 3,000 facilities potentially affected by the
rule (including sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, and foundries)
which include one or more of the designated affected sources, 86 of
which are estimated to be major sources. Most establishments are
included in NAICS 331314 (Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum),
although others may fall in NAICS 331315 (Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and
Foil Manufacturing), NAICS 331316 (Aluminum Extruded Product
Manufacturing), NAICS 331319 (Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing),
NAICS 331521 (Aluminum Die-Castings), and NAICS 331524 (Aluminum
Foundries). Affected sources at facilities that are major sources of
HAPs are regulated under the final rule. In addition, emissions of
dioxins and furans (D/F) from affected sources at facilities that are
area sources of HAPs are also regulated.
    The final rule does not apply to manufacturers of aluminum die
castings, aluminum foundries, or aluminum extruders that melt no
materials other than clean charge and materials generated within the
facility and that also do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat
furnace or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. Secondary
aluminum production facilities that are collocated with primary
aluminum production are regulated under today's final rule.
    Regulated categories and entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                     NAICS code   SIC code        Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................................     331314        3341   Secondary smelting and alloying of
                                                                          aluminum facilities.
                                                                         Secondary aluminum production facility
                                                                          affected sources that are collocated
                                                                          at:
                                                    331312        3334   Primary aluminum production facilities.
                                                    331315        3353   Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil
                                                                          manufacturing facilities.
                                                    331316        3354   Aluminum extruded product manufacturing
                                                                          facilities.
                                                    331319        3355   Other aluminum rolling and drawing
                                                                          facilities.
                                                    331521        3363   Aluminum die casting facilities.
                                                    331524        3365   Aluminum foundry facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now
aware could potentially be

[[Page 15691]]

regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1500 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative:

    Region I--Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA,
Region I, CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-
3595.
    Region II--Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,
Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000.
    Region III--Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief,
U.S. EPA, Region III (3AT10), 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,
PA 19107, (215) 566-2110.
    Region IV--Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-
3104, (404) 562-9131.
    Region V--George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief,
U.S. EPA, Region V (5AE-26), 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL
60604, (312) 353-2088.
    Region VI--John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S.
EPA, Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,
(214) 665-7220.
    Region VII--Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and
Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7446.
    Region VIII--Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations
Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6432.
    Region IX--Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-
1138.
    Region X--Dan Meyer, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,
Region X (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128, (206)
553-4150.

Judicial Review

    The NESHAP for secondary aluminum production was proposed on
February 11, 1999 (63 FR 6946). Today's Federal Register action
announces the EPA's final decision on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1)
of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is available by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this final
rule. Only those objections to this rule which were raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be
raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are the subject of today's final rule may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.

Technology Transfer Network (TTN)

    In addition to being available in the docket, following
promulgation, a copy of the rule will be posted at the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules (http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The TTN provides information from
EPA in various areas of air pollution technology or policy. If more
information on the TTN is needed, call the TTN help line at (919)541-
5384.

Outline

    The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble
to the final rule.

I. Background and Public Participation
II. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability and Definitions
    B. Emission Limits and Requirements
    C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements
    D. Reconsideration of Standard for Die Casters and Foundries
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Standards and Operating Requirements
    C. Monitoring Requirements
    D. Impacts
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Impacts
    A. Air Quality Impacts
    B. Economic Impacts
    C. Non-Air Health and Environmental Impacts
    D. Energy Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Congressional Review Act
    B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    C. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background and Public Participation

    The CAA (section 101(b)(1)) was created in part ``to protect and
enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its
population.'' Section 112(b), as revised in 61 FR 30816 (June 18,
1996), lists 188 HAPs believed to cause adverse health or environmental
effects. Section 112(d) requires that emission standards be promulgated
for all categories and subcategories of ``major'' sources of these HAP
and for ``area'' sources listed for regulation, pursuant to section
112(c). Major sources are defined as those that emit or have the
potential to emit (from all emission points in all source categories
within the facility) at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAPs. Area sources are stationary sources of HAPs that
are not major sources.
    The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate national emission standards
for sources of HAPs. Section 112(d) provides that these standards must
reflect:

* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the HAP * * *
that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new or existing sources in the category or
subcategory to which such emission standard applies (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 7412(d)(2)).

    This level of control is referred to as MACT. For new sources, the
standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall not be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator''
(section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards shall be no less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing sources for source categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for sources or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)). These two
minimum levels of control define the MACT floor for new and existing
sources.
    On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of
categories of sources slated for regulation under section 112(c). This
list included the secondary aluminum production source category
regulated by the standards being promulgated today. The statute
requires emissions standards for the listed source categories to be
promulgated between November 1992 and November 2000. On June 4, 1996,
the EPA published a schedule for promulgating these standards (61 FR
28197). Standards for the secondary aluminum production source category
covered by this rule were proposed on February 11, 1999 (63 FR 6946).
    As in the proposal, the final standards give existing sources 3
years from the date of promulgation to comply. New sources that begin
construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with
the standards by the date of promulgation or upon startup,

[[Page 15692]]

whichever is later. The EPA believes these standards to be achievable
by affected sources within the time provided.
    Emission limits, operating limits, methods for determining initial
compliance, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements are included in the final rule. All of these components
are necessary to ensure that sources will comply with the standards
both initially and over time. However, the EPA has made every effort to
simplify the requirements in the rule.
    The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for
the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of
proposal. To provide interested individuals the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed
standards, a public hearing was offered at proposal. However, the
public did not request a hearing; therefore, one was not held. The
public comment period was from February 11, 1999 to April 12, 1999. A
total of 36 comment letters were received. Commenters included industry
representatives, State and local agencies, and environmental groups.
Today's final rule reflects the EPA's full consideration of all of the
comments. Major public comments on the proposed rule along with the
EPA's responses to these comments are summarized in this preamble. A
more detailed discussion of public comments and the EPA's responses can
be found in the Response to Comment Document (Docket No. A-92-61).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability and Definitions

    The rule applies to the following affected sources at secondary
aluminum production facilities: each new, existing or reconstructed
aluminum scrap shredder, thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering
kiln/decoating kiln, group 2 (i.e., processing clean charge only and no
reactive fluxing) furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, and
rotary dross cooler; each existing secondary aluminum processing unit
(composed of all existing group 1 (i.e., processing other than clean
charge and/or performing reactive fluxing) furnace emission units and
all existing in-line fluxer emission units); and each new or
reconstructed secondary aluminum processing unit (composed of all new
or reconstructed group 1 furnace emission units and all new or
reconstructed in-line fluxer emission units which are simultaneously
constructed or reconstructed after February 11, 1999) located at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source of HAP.
The rule also limits emissions of D/F from each new, existing or
reconstructed thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln, and sweat furnace; and from each new, existing or
reconstructed secondary aluminum processing unit that contains one or
more group 1 furnace(s) not processing clean charge, and that is
located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area
source. The rule also applies to secondary aluminum production
processes designated as affected sources if they are collocated at a
primary aluminum production facility.
    The rule does not apply to facilities that are aluminum extruding,
aluminum die casting, and aluminum foundry facilities that (1) only
process clean charge and material generated within the facility, and
(2) do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. Those aluminum extruding, die
casting, and foundry facilities that purchase or otherwise obtain
materials other than ``clean charge'' and operate a group 1 furnace or
operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are considered secondary aluminum
production facilities under this rule and as such are subject to the
requirements of this rule.
    The EPA categorized process furnaces into two classes. A group 1
furnace includes any furnace that melts, holds, or processes aluminum
containing paint, lubricants, coatings, or other foreign materials with
or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean charge with reactive
fluxing. Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid
flux, other than cover flux, (including but not limited to chlorine gas
and magnesium chloride) that results in a HAP emission.
    A group 2 (clean charge) furnace processes only molten aluminum, T-
bar, sow, ingot, billet, pig, alloying elements; thermally dried
unpainted aluminum chips, aluminum scrap dried at 343  deg.C (650
deg.F) or higher or delacquered/decoated at 482  deg.C (900  deg.F);
oil- and lubricant-free unpainted/uncoated gates and risers; and oil-
and lubricant-free unpainted/uncoated scrap, shapes, or products (e.g.,
pistons) that have not undergone any process (e.g., machining, coating,
painting, etc.) that would cause contamination of the aluminum (with
coatings, oils, lubricants, or paints); and internal runaround. A group
2 furnace performs no fluxing or performs fluxing using only
nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating gases (such as argon
and nitrogen) or agents.
    This rule allows permitting authorities the discretion to defer
Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permitting requirements until
December 9, 2004, for area sources of air pollution subject to this
NESHAP. This deferral is an option at the permitting authority's
discretion under EPA-approved part 70 permit programs and not an
automatic deferral that the source can invoke. Thus, Part 70 permitting
authorities are free to require area sources subject to this NESHAP to
obtain title V permits. In areas where no approved part 70 program is
in effect, and the part 71 permitting program is administered by EPA,
we will defer the requirement for title V permitting for these area
sources until December 9, 2004. In a separate action, the Agency
proposed final amendments on August 18, 1999 to extend title V
operating permit deferrals for area sources in five source categories
(64 FR 45116).

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

    The rule applies to major sources. In addition, the following
emission sources located at secondary aluminum production facilities
that are area sources of HAPs are regulated for emissions of D/F: new
and existing thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/
decoating kilns, sweat furnaces, and secondary aluminum processing
units containing group 1 furnaces that process other than clean charge.
The emission limits for these units are summarized in Table 1 to
subpart RRR in the final rule.
    The particulate matter (PM) emission limits apply to new,
reconstructed and existing aluminum scrap shredders, scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross
coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum
production facilities that are major sources. Controlling PM emissions
also controls emissions of HAP metals. A surrogate approach to emission
limits is used to allow easier and less expensive measurement and
monitoring requirements.
    The rule limits total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions from new and
existing thermal chip dryers and from new and existing scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns at secondary aluminum production
facilities that are major sources. The THC represents emissions of HAP
organics. Hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limits apply to new,
reconstructed and existing scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating
kilns, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum

[[Page 15693]]

production facilities that are major sources. The HCl is itself a HAP,
and it also serves as a surrogate measure of HAP inorganics including
hydrogen fluoride (HF) and chlorine (Cl<INF>2</INF>) emissions. The
rule limits emissions of D/F from new, reconstructed and existing
thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns
and sweat furnaces, and secondary aluminum processing units at
secondary aluminum production facilities that are major or area
sources. The D/F emission limit does not apply to facilities that are
primarily die casting, extruding, or foundry facilities provided that
they do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, and do not process materials
other than materials generated within the facility unless it is ``clean
charge'' (defined in the rule). No surrogate is used for D/F emissions.

C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements

    The rule includes operating and monitoring requirements for each
affected source and emission unit within a secondary aluminum
processing unit to ensure continuous compliance with the emissions
standards. The rule incorporates all requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) except as provided in the
appendix to the rule (Appendix A to subpart RRR). The operating and
monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 2 to subpart RRR in the
final rule.

D. Reconsideration of Standard for Die Casters and Foundries

    EPA has based its MACT standard for aluminum die casting and
aluminum foundries, as well as its assessment of the economic impacts
on small businesses in these industries, on information on
representative facility practices provided to EPA by these industries
to date. However, affected facilities in these industries have
expressed concern that the information and assumptions upon which EPA
has relied may be incomplete or may not adequately represent the
processes and emissions at such facilities. Accordingly, EPA has
decided that it would be prudent to gather further information
concerning facilities in the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry
industries and then to reevaluate MACT requirements and the economic
impact on small businesses in these industries in light of this
information.
    Accordingly, EPA will issue within three months a proposed rule to
remove the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries from
the present secondary aluminum standard, and a proposed rule to stay
the applicability of the present standard to the aluminum die casting
and aluminum foundry industries while EPA reevaluates the MACT
requirements applicable to such facilities. EPA intends to take final
action concerning the proposed stay as soon thereafter as practicable.
EPA will also initiate a formal process to collect further information
from the facilities in these industries on the activities in which they
engage and the potential of these activities to contribute to HAP
emissions. After evaluating this information, EPA will make a new
determination concerning MACT requirements for both major facilities
and area sources in these industries. EPA expects to adopt any
alternative MACT standard applicable to these industries, and to take
final action to remove the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry
industries from the current standard, within two years. Any alternative
MACT standard adopted for these industries will provide three years
from the date of promulgation for affected facilities to achieve
compliance.

III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    This section presents a summary of responses to selected comments.
A more comprehensive comment summary and responses can be found in
Docket No. A-92-61.

A. Applicability

    Comment: Several commenters wanted to exempt unvented in-line flux
boxes from testing and monitoring requirements and suggested regulating
them via work practices based on the following statements:
    <bullet> Emissions do not have the potential to exceed the emission
limit because small amounts ( 0.2 lbs/ton) of chlorine gas flux are
used;
    <bullet> There is no acceptable method for sampling their fugitive
emissions, so exclusion from testing and monitoring would improve the
SAPU concept and substantially reduce costs; and
    <bullet> Unvented in-line flux boxes are a pollution prevention
design that operate within allowable OSHA limits and should be
considered representative of the MACT floor when properly installed.
    Response: Unvented in-line fluxers are capable of using and
emitting chlorine and HCl in excess of the HCl emission standard for
in-line fluxers, 0.04 lb/ton. One manufacturer of unvented in-line
fluxers specifies a flux rate of 0.92 pounds chlorine per ton aluminum.
The Agency has no reason to believe that fluxing at 0.2 to 0.9 lb/ton
in an ``unvented'' in-line fluxer will meet the MACT floor level of
emissions. Owner/operators can meet the emission limit by capturing and
venting emissions to add-on controls or limiting the chlorine flux
input to the fluxer. Limiting chlorine flux input to levels below the
emission limit and monitoring flux addition is a work practice that
would avoid the need for testing to demonstrate compliance. If testing
is necessary, testing costs may be reduced through like-for-like
testing allowed in the final rule, i.e., with multiple uncontrolled
flux boxes of same design and same operating practice, only one needs
to be tested to demonstrate compliance.
    The commenter's claim that such units cannot be tested is not
valid. One unvented flux box at a facility that will be subject to this
rule has been tested since proposal, and the results reported to the
Agency. This particular unit was tested by measuring emissions at the
point where fluxed metal exits the flux box. Another method of testing
is to construct a temporary enclosure around the fluxer for the short
duration of performance tests to capture fugitive emissions for
measurement purposes (see Docket Item IV-A-1). Following the
performance tests, flux usage must be monitored, and the flux box
operating procedures must be maintained to ensure continuous compliance
with the HCl standard.
    With regard to ``unvented'' fluxers being a pollution prevention
design that should be considered a MACT floor, commenters have referred
to perceived lower emissions that presumably are achieved by lower and
more efficient use of fluxing agents. The MACT floor technology for
control of in-line flux boxes upon which the emission limit is based is
a lime-injected fabric filter; this technology can achieve an emission
limit of 0.04 lb/ton HCl. No data were provided by the commenters to
demonstrate equal or lower emissions from ``unvented'' fluxers over the
full range of input flux as compared to vented fluxers with the floor
technology.
    Comment: Several commenters opposed regulation of area
manufacturing sources of D/F emissions, such as extrusion, die casting,
and foundry facilities. Another commenter asserted that the EPA assumed
area and major source D/F emitting processes emit at about equal rates
per ton of feed, but data available to EPA for side-charge and roll top
melters processing clean charge show those furnaces are not significant

[[Page 15694]]

sources of D/F as compared to furnaces charging dirty scrap. This
commenter also contended the EPA assumption that 55 percent of all
delacquering furnaces are located at area sources was the basis for
regulating area sources. In comments on the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
strategy, the commenter claimed there were inappropriate assumptions
and errors in the inventories for sections 112(c)(6) and 112(k).
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the error regarding delacquering
furnaces in the inventory for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics strategy.
The EPA recognizes that emissions of D/F from affected sources in
secondary aluminum processing facilities are site-specific and depend
on the type of materials (scrap) fed to the process, flux type, flux
rate, and flux practices among other variables. For both major and area
sources, the materials fed to the furnace and combustion processes
contain varying amounts of oil (hydrocarbons) and coatings
(hydrocarbons and chlorides). These compounds found in scrap containing
oils and coatings, as well as some fluxes, are D/F precursors.
Processes located at facilities that are area sources and using the
same feed and flux materials as are used at major sources will emit D/F
at levels equal to the same processes at major source facilities.
    The EPA is not claiming that the total D/F emissions from affected
sources located at facilities that are area sources are equal to the
total D/F emissions from facilities that are major sources. However,
there were also other commenters who mentioned large numbers of sweat
furnaces in their States whose emissions were not counted, suggesting
there are additional D/F emissions beyond those estimated in the
national impacts at proposal. The EPA has developed an estimate of D/F
emissions from sweat furnaces located at facilities that are area
sources. That estimate is now included in the national impact
calculations.
    Comment: Numerous commenters representing aluminum extruders,
aluminum die casters, and aluminum foundries stated that their
facilities should not be regulated because they differ fundamentally
from large secondary aluminum production facilities in emission
potential, particularly D/F emissions. The commenters raised the
following issues:
    <bullet> Extruders encompass a broad spectrum of facilities and
appear to fall within the broad definition of secondary aluminum
production facilities, which range from relatively small facilities
owned by large companies to facilities owned by independent business
people, many of which the commenter claimed are small businesses.
    <bullet> Some extruders, die casters, and foundries use no
purchased scrap but do use internally generated scrap, while other
facilities use small amounts of ``clean'' purchased scrap. Some are
concerned that regulation may interfere with the effort to recycle at
the plant, while others who purchase scrap see the regulation as
creating a disincentive to recycle from outside the plant.
    <bullet> Impurities in scrap are a principal source of D/F
precursors. The commenters stated that extruders, die casters, and
foundries cannot be large contributors to D/F emissions because they
use or process only small amounts of higher quality scrap and do
limited fluxing. One commenter argued that EPA should exclude extruders
as small contributors to D/F emissions as in Alabama Power vs. Costle,
636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) using the de minimis exception
articulated in that case.
    <bullet> Previous EPA publications support the distinction between
die casters and secondary aluminum production facilities:
    <bullet><bullet> The Documentation for Developing the Initial
Source Category List defines secondary aluminum production as
facilities that smelt, and not including die casters;
    <bullet><bullet> An EPA new source review guidance memo (Treatment
of Aluminum Die Casting Operations for the Purposes of New Source
Review Applicability from, Thomas Curran, Director, Information
Transfer and Program Integration Division, December 4, 1998) states
``die casting facilities typically need not be considered secondary
metal production plants'' (the commenters argued that this memo
acknowledges that die casters could engage in in-house recycling of
castings and not be considered a secondary aluminum production
facility); and
    <bullet><bullet> The Secondary Brass and Bronze New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) distinguishes between facilities that
reclaim brass and bronze and those that create a finished product.
    Applying the D/F standard to affected sources located at facilities
that are area sources will subject facilities such as extruders, die
casters, and foundries to the burden of title V permitting and MACT
monitoring and reporting. One of these commenters stated that no
environmental benefit will be gained from regulating area source
aluminum production facilities since they already meet the emission
limitation.
    Response: The EPA has considered these issues and responds as
follows to the points raised:
    <bullet> With respect to the first issue, the EPA agrees that based
on the definition of secondary aluminum production facility and current
operations of some facilities that are extruders, those extruders would
be subject to this rule. Numerous comments on the applicability section
and definitions in the proposed rule were received and after
consideration of those comments, the EPA has revised those sections of
the final rule. As part of the revisions, the EPA has concluded that
aluminum extruding, aluminum die casting, and aluminum foundry
facilities that process no materials other than materials generated
within the facility and ``clean charge'' (defined in the rule), and
that do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are not secondary aluminum
production facilities and, therefore, are not subject to the
requirements of the rule. Based on comments and information received in
response to the proposal and subsequent meetings with the sources, the
Agency believes that most small businesses will not fall under the
definition of secondary aluminum production facility. Those aluminum
extruding, die casting, and foundry facilities that do purchase or
otherwise obtain materials other than ``clean charge'' and/or operate a
thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln are secondary aluminum production facilities and are
subject to this rule.
    The commenter's reference to some small facilities being owned by
large companies is consistent with the EPA's knowledge that large
companies in the secondary aluminum production industry engage in
extruding operations. The commenter also claimed that some extruders
are owned by independent businesses, many of which are small, however
no specific quantitative data were provided to assist the Agency in
assessing potential impacts.
    <bullet> With regard to the second issue, the regulation
discouraging recycling within the plant, the final rule does not
prevent facilities that are area sources from using internally-
generated scrap as charge to their group 1 furnaces. Regarding
purchased scrap, although some extruders, die casters, and foundries
use only small amounts of purchased scrap in their operations, other
information provided to the EPA since proposal indicates that some of
this type facility use more than half scrap (purchased and internally
generated) as feed/charge in their operations (see Docket Item IV-E-2).
    The issue with purchased scrap is the level of contamination with
D/F

[[Page 15695]]

emission precursors. The EPA worked with industry representatives
during the regulatory development phase to establish definitions and
specifications for purchased scrap that would yield lower HAP
emissions. Data collected indicated that the percentage of oil and
coatings in scrap (hydrocarbon and chloride content) varies over a
large range. No concurrence was achieved on the levels of scrap oil and
coatings content that would reliably limit the processing of D/F
precursors from affected sources, nor was concurrence achieved on a way
to measure these levels of oil and coatings. Further, a similar
discussion with industry representatives failed to reach a consensus on
how to define limited reactive fluxing, the other important aspect of
D/F emission potential. The EPA has concluded that facilities in which
aluminum scrap is processed, whether purchased or otherwise acquired
from outside the facility, fall within the secondary aluminum
production source category.
    <bullet> With regard to the third issue, these commenters assert
that these facilities are not large contributors to D/F emissions
because they purchase only small amounts of scrap or ``clean'' scrap,
thus limiting the availability of D/F precursors in the affected
sources. However, three factors (the total quantity of scrap fed to
processes, the percentage of oil and coatings contamination of the
scrap, and the flux rate) are significant variables that affect
generation of D/F precursors. As mentioned above, some facilities use
significant amounts of purchased scrap.
    Regarding the comment citing Alabama Power vs. Costle, 636 F.2d 323
(D.C. Cir. 1980), and requesting de minimis exemption for extruders,
EPA notes that CAA Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to regulate sources
accounting in the aggregate for more than 90 percent of certain dioxin
and furan emissions, and that EPA cannot use a de minimis rationale to
exclude area sources from regulation if this would be inconsistent with
this statutory mandate.
    <bullet> With regard to the fourth issue, documentation for the
Source Category Listing states that the secondary aluminum production
source category includes ``any facility engaged in the cleaning,
melting, refining, alloying, and pouring of aluminum recovered from
scrap, foundry returns, and dross, to form aluminum products such as
alloy ingots, billets, notched bars, shot, hot metals, and hardeners.''
The documentation also states that the category includes pretreatment
processes which include drying, burning, and sweating, among others.
Although there can be differences in operations and products between
secondary aluminum production facilities and those facilities that are
primarily die casting, foundry, and extrusion facilities, for the
purposes of this NESHAP, the Agency considers the die casting, foundry,
and extrusion facilities that use aluminum scrap and other coated/
painted aluminum bearing materials obtained from outside their
facilities to be engaging in secondary aluminum production operations.
    The EPA new source review guidance memo referenced by the commenter
has, in addition to the commenter's quote, an extensive discussion of
the fact that some facilities whose primary activity is die casting
also perform secondary metals production from post-consumer scrap or
unspecified aluminum scrap. This type of facility was identified in the
memo as a ``nested'' secondary aluminum support facility. Such
facilities also use processing equipment that is defined as an affected
source under this rule. It is the acquisition of aluminum-bearing
materials from outside the facility that are not ``clean charge,'' and
the presence of affected sources that subject the facility to this
rule. The difference in products is not the determining factor.
    The final rule clarifies that aluminum die casting, aluminum
foundry, and aluminum extrusion facilities that process only clean
charge (as distinct from scrap) are not secondary aluminum production
facilities (regardless of the remelting of internally generated scrap),
provided they do not operate thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, or sweat furnaces. Aluminum die
casting, extruding, and foundry facilities that process aluminum scrap,
etc., in the furnaces (i.e., materials that are not clean charge) from
outside the facility are secondary aluminum production facilities and
subject to the final rule.
    <bullet> Regarding the fifth issue, the burden of title V
permitting, monitoring, and reporting for area sources, the final rule
has been changed to allow permitting authorities the discretion to
defer the title V permitting requirements for secondary aluminum
production area source facilities that are not otherwise subject to
title V permitting requirements under other regulatory actions. A
further change that will reduce the burden for area sources is that
they will only be required to conduct an initial performance test to
demonstrate compliance. The requirement to repeat the performance test
every 5 years has been eliminated for area sources.
    Facilities that use add-on controls will be required to monitor
parameters in accordance with their approved site-specific OM&M plan.
Facilities that are area sources which use purchased scrap, but meet
the D/F emission limit without add-on controls, i.e., use work
practices, will also be required to monitor in accordance with their
site-specific OM&M plan. Their monitoring provisions will include a
calculation method for determination of scrap contamination levels, or
a scrap inspection program to demonstrate they are not exceeding the
scrap quantity and oil and coatings contamination levels, and flux rate
established during the initial performance test.
    The environmental benefit of controlling D/F from these affected
sources is reduction of emissions of an environmentally persistent HAP.
The benefits of monitoring for those sources who meet the limit without
add-on controls is continuing evidence that the operating practices
used during the compliance tests are maintained and emissions remain at
a level below the limit.
    Comment: Commenters desired to allow new or reconstructed units
into the SAPU and encourage EPA to do it with a discount applied to the
new unit's allowed emissions. The commenters stated that:
    <bullet> It will allow sources to take advantage of the more
efficient fluxing achievable in new flux boxes, in particular the
``unvented'' flux boxes.
    <bullet> It promotes pollution prevention and is consistent with
common sense initiatives and project XL innovations that allow
plantwide applicability limits.
    <bullet> It is not standard avoidance, but a more effective way of
complying.
    Response: To allow new or reconstructed units into a SAPU
consisting of existing units would involve averaging the emission
reductions achieved by new and existing affected sources. Since new and
existing sources are subject to separate standards and must
individually demonstrate compliance, creation of a source which has
both new and existing emission units is not permitted by the CAA.
Therefore, EPA will not allow new units to become part of a SAPU
comprised of existing units. In order for new units to have the same
benefits available to existing emission units, the Agency has revised
the rule to allow for a new SAPU, that is composed entirely of
simultaneously constructed new sources and/or simultaneously
reconstructed sources, in addition to the SAPU for existing emission
units.

[[Page 15696]]

    Comment: In comments on combining and treating emissions from
existing sources with those from new sources in a single control
system:
    <bullet> One commenter asked to group an existing or new furnace
with a new in-line fluxer as a separate affected source (outside the
SAPU). The combined unit would have the same limits as the furnace by
itself for PM, HCl, and D/F (i.e., no emission increment for the new
fluxer). The industry claimed a significant improvement in fluxing
efficiency with much lower emissions is associated with moving fluxing
from the furnace to in-line fluxers.
    <bullet> Another commenter requested that the rule be expanded to
affirm that new emission units may be ducted to existing control
systems if capacity is available or can be expanded to accommodate the
new source.
    Response: The problem with combining a new affected source with an
existing affected source is that the new source is required to meet the
specified emission limits, but once combined, the new source emissions
are not measurable separately from the emissions from the existing
source. As noted in the response to the previous comment, there is no
legal construct under the CAA that permits combining control
requirements for existing and new sources, therefore, the combination
of an existing furnace and new in-line fluxer is not permitted.
    The revisions to the final rule do provide for the establishment of
a SAPU composed entirely of simultaneously constructed new emission
units. This will allow the combination of a new furnace and new in-line
fluxer as a SAPU, but not allow combining a new furnace or in-line
fluxer with an existing SAPU.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the applicability
of the rule to sweat furnaces:
    <bullet> One commenter, a manufacturer of sweat furnaces, expressed
concern about economic impacts on small aluminum reclamation operators.
This commenter estimated that there are at least several hundred sweat
furnaces manufactured by them currently being used nationally with
capacities considerably less than the model sweat furnace used in EPA's
analysis of impacts (5,000 tons/year). All of their furnaces are
equipped with integral afterburners. This commenter also submitted an
afterburner performance test report showing 97.8 percent removal of PM
by the afterburner and claimed, but did not have measurements, that D/F
removal should be similar. The commenter stated that the preamble did
not show D/F results upstream of the afterburners or what destruction
efficiency was achieved.
    <bullet> Another commenter attached a brochure from a manufacturer
claiming to have distributed over 2,000 small sweat furnaces. This
commenter states that the proposal underestimated the number of these
sources. The commenter believes that testing and control costs will
eliminate small businesses from the market and suggested that
regulations for area sources be withdrawn until small business, health,
and environmental impacts have been reassessed. Another manufacturer of
sweat furnaces suggested a technology-based standard for area source
sweat furnaces with no testing required.
    Response: The EPA has no test data to support a comparison between
PM and D/F removal efficiencies. The D/F emission limit in the proposed
and final rules has been proven to be achievable with MACT floor
technology.
    Based on the information contained in these comments, the EPA
requested additional information and data from sweat furnace
manufacturers to further assess impacts of regulating D/F emissions
from the furnaces. The large number of units reported to be
manufactured suggested large numbers of these affected sources are
currently in operation. The EPA's further investigation found that
although one manufacturer who commented only sells sweat furnaces with
integral afterburners for emission control; that is not the case for
all domestic manufacturers.
    Due to the large number of these sources and the types of scrap
materials processed, their D/F emission potential is significant both
individually and in the aggregate. Recognizing this, the EPA considered
additional regulatory strategies for sweat furnaces and performed an
economic analysis to examine the impacts of those strategies. The
conclusion from this analysis is that the cost of measuring D/F
emissions from sweat furnaces through a performance test is significant
in comparison to the cost of the furnace and afterburner. Based on this
analysis the EPA has revised the rule to add an alternative means of
compliance. Owner/operators electing to install and operate an
afterburner meeting the design criteria of operating temperature of at
least 1600  deg.F and a 2 second residence time will not have to
conduct performance tests. The final rule retains the numerical
standard so that owner/operators with control equipment that does not
meet the design criteria have the option to test to show that the D/F
emissions are below the limit. These revisions to the proposed rule,
combined with many anticipated State permitting authority decisions to
exercise their discretion to defer the requirement for title V permits,
will significantly reduce the burden for both large and small
businesses operating sweat furnaces. The economic impact analysis
conducted for this regulation reports minimal economic impacts to
owners and operators of sweat furnaces.

B. Definitions

    Comment: Numerous comments were received on the definition of
``clean charge.''
    <bullet> One commenter stated that the definition should include as
clean charge, outside runaround that is contractually ensured to be
clean.
    <bullet> Other commenters stated that they support inclusion of
``non-coated runaround'' scrap in the definition, which may have small
amounts of lubricant, and that some runaround is returned from
customers. These commenters stated that the rule should allow external,
preconsumer, and non-coated runaround scrap in group 2 furnaces.
    <bullet> Several commenters requested that EPA define non-coated
runaround scrap or redefine clean charge to allow scrap covered with
lubricants or substances low in materials that could generate D/F. Many
die casters use scrap generated on-site (miscast material, defective
parts, and cutoffs of excess aluminum) that may have inorganic agents
(clay or talc) or die release agents (heavy waxes or high molecular
weight oils) that do not generate D/F when burned.
    <bullet> Commenters representing extruders also wanted to revise
the definition to include purchased scrap low in materials that
contribute to D/F generation.
    <bullet> Other commenters noted the proposed definition of clean
charge allows only pure aluminum (pure aluminum is an incorrect term)
that cannot be cast in a die casting machine. They stated that the
definition of clean charge also restricts the use of chips that have
not been processed in a chip dryer and this is a disincentive for
exploration of new technology (presses, centrifuges, and washers)
alternatives to chip drying. Some facilities that do dry chips do not
heat to 343  deg.C because it may oxidize the metal. The temperature to
which chips must be heated to qualify as clean charge is arbitrary and
was not considered with any input from foundries and die casters.
    Response: In regard to the first four comments on ``clean charge,''
EPA has reviewed and reconsidered the definition of clean charge. The

[[Page 15697]]

definition of clean charge at proposal erroneously included non-coated
runaround scrap which commenters wanted clarified to include runaround
from outside the facility (i.e., external, relatively ``clean,''
preconsumer, non-coated runaround). The commenters acknowledged that
the runaround may have ``small'' amounts of lubricant and coatings.
Lubricants, oils, and coatings are D/F precursors. As explained in a
previous response, the EPA worked with industry representatives during
the regulatory development phase to establish definitions and
specifications for purchased scrap that would yield consistently lower
HAP emissions when charged to furnaces. Data collected indicated that
the percentage of oil and coatings in scrap (hydrocarbon and chloride
content) varies over a large range. No concurrence was achieved on the
levels of scrap oil and coatings content, or a universal method of
measuring the scrap content of oils/coatings, that would reliably limit
the processing of D/F precursors from affected sources. Group 2 and
those group 1 furnaces that are ``clean charge'' furnaces have no D/F
emission limit. It is not consistent with the concept of clean charge
furnaces to allow oil- and lubricant-bearing scrap purchased or
otherwise obtained from outside the facility to be charged as clean
charge. For this reason, the Agency has clarified that the definition
of clean charge includes internally generated runaround. Internal
runaround is defined in the final rule as scrap material generated on-
site by aluminum extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/
stamping, cutting, and trimming operations that do not contain paint or
solid coatings. Aluminum chips generated by turning, boring, milling,
and similar machining operations that have not been dried at 343  deg.C
(650  deg.F) or higher, or by an equivalent non-thermal drying process,
are not considered internal runaround. Clean charge also does not
include ``runaround'' scrap that is purchased or otherwise obtained
from outside the facility.
    Secondary aluminum production facilities may use painted and/or
purchased runaround in group 2 furnaces by drying or delacquering it to
meet the definition of clean charge, so as to eliminate the possibility
of D/F formation in the furnace. Owner/operators may also charge
painted and/or purchased runaround scrap to uncontrolled group 1
furnaces in a SAPU, provided they achieve an initial compliance
demonstration and operate according to an OM&M plan approved by the
permitting authority. For group 1 furnaces operated without add-on
controls, the plan would likely include a site-specific scrap
inspection or certification program of some type to indicate the
contamination level and to define the percentage of scrap in the total
furnace charge.
    As noted in a response to a previous comment, facilities that are
primarily aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders that process
only on-site materials or clean charge, and that do not operate a
thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or
sweat furnace are not secondary aluminum production facilities and are
not subject to this rule.
    <bullet> With regard to the fifth comment, relating to the use of
the term ``pure aluminum'' in the definition of ``clean charge'' in the
proposed rule, the definition has been revised for the final rule to
eliminate the word ``pure'' as a modifier of aluminum and instead
describe it as oil- and lubricant-free uncoated/unpainted aluminum.
    With respect to the issue of chip drying and the potential for
oxidation of the aluminum, the final rule does not contain a minimum
temperature requirement for thermal chip drying to make the chips
``clean charge.'' With regard to other chip processing, the Agency is
not precluding new technology such as presses, centrifuges, and washers
that may be capable of producing chips with no oily residue, thus
qualifying those processed chips as clean charge.

C. Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

    Comment: One commenter urged EPA to review the application of
fluoride and chlorine fluxes in the secondary aluminum industry and to
verify the appropriateness of HCl as a surrogate.
    Response: Emission limits for HCl were proposed because test data
indicate that HCl is emitted when chlorine and reactive chloride fluxes
are used, and the technology representing the MACT floor for HCl
removal, which was determined to be lime injected fabric filters, also
achieves MACT floor level removal of chlorine and HF. Although some
fluoride fluxes are used by the industry, differences in flux
properties, cost relative to chlorine/chloride fluxes, and occupational
health considerations related to in-plant particulate levels limit the
amounts used, thus limiting the potential for HF emissions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that emission limits do not reflect
limits achievable using currently available technology, and that
neither the limits nor the selected MACT accurately reflect MACT. The
commenter stated that the MACT floor emission levels violate section
112 of the CAA in that they are not based on the best-controlled
sources for new sources and are not at least as stringent as the best
performing 12 percent for existing sources. According to the commenter,
EPA should consider, but did not, emission limits more stringent than
the floor. In a related comment, another commenter disagrees with the
dioxin emission standards and states that they are unsupported by
emissions data. According to the commenter, the method of developing
the limit is inconsistent with the CAA and fails to recognize the law
of averages and, in the case of SAPUs, is illegal because it permits
individual group 1 furnaces to emit dioxin at levels in excess of the
MACT floor.
    Response: The commenters argued that EPA did not properly consider
the available emissions data in establishing the MACT floor emissions
limits. In the case, Sierra Club v. EPA (March 2, 1999), the DC Circuit
held that because MACT standards must be achievable in practice, EPA
must assure that the standards are achievable ``under most adverse
circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur'' (assuming
proper design and operation of control technology). The court further
held that EPA can reasonably interpret the MACT floor methodology
language so long as the Agency's methodology in a particular rule
allows it to ``make a reasonable estimate of the performance of the top
12 percent of units,'' that evaluating how a given MACT technology
performs is a permissible means of estimating this performance, and
that new source standards need not be based on performance of a single
source. The court's decisions give EPA latitude in determining the MACT
floor and the MACT floor emission limits. The EPA determined the MACT
floor based on information available for each affected source and
emission unit. At proposal, the EPA selected emission limits at the
floor level of control, and the commenters provided no additional
emissions data for any pollutant for EPA to consider. The emission
standards are based on the emissions levels achieved through the
application of MACT floor technologies and account for variation in the
process and in the air pollution control device effectiveness.
    Comment: Several commenters did not want an exceedance of an
operating parameter to be a violation of an operating requirement.
According to the commenters:

[[Page 15698]]

    <bullet> The rule is not clear as to what constitutes a violation
of the operating requirements.
    <bullet> Operating parameters are only indicators of process and
control performance, not a direct measure of excess emissions.
    <bullet> An exceedance should not to be a violation until six
exceedances occur in a 6-month period.
    <bullet> No more than one violation should be counted per 24 hour
period for any one parameter.
    <bullet> The rule is not clear on whether a failure to take
corrective action in response to an exceedance is a violation of the
standard.
    <bullet> A failure to initiate corrective action within 1 hour
should constitute a violation.
    <bullet> The rule should specify that if corrective action is begun
within 1 hour and completed in accordance with the startup, shutdown,
malfunction (SSM) plan, no violation has occurred.
    Response: The EPA has considered the issue of a deviation being a
violation and addresses the commenters' points as follows:
    <bullet> With regard to the commenters' first point, the language
in the final rule has been written to make clear that a deviation of an
operating parameter is a violation of the operating standard. Each
major source facility owner/operator is required to define the
compliance parameters to be monitored in their OM&M plan. Then, during
the initial performance tests, they are required to monitor and
establish the value or range of the parameters. These values must be
reported in the results of the test and notification of compliance
status to the permitting authority and must be approved by the
permitting authority. During subsequent operations, if the monitored
parameters exceed the values or fall outside the range determined
during the initial performance test, it is a violation of the operating
requirements of the standard, unless it is the result of a malfunction
to which the facility responds to in accordance with the SSM plan.
    <bullet> Regarding the second point, the owner/operator may use
continuous emission monitors (CEMs) as a direct measure of the
emissions rather than using operating parameters if such CEMs can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the permitting agency to reliably
measure emissions.
    <bullet> Regarding the third point, the EPA has no basis for
allowing six deviations before considering the facility to be in
violation. The owner/operator has ample opportunity to establish a
range for the operating parameters and must thereafter operate within
that range.
    <bullet> Regarding the fourth point, any deviation of an operating
parameter limit is a violation of the operating standard, regardless of
when it occurs, unless it is the result of a malfunction to which the
owner or operator responds in accordance with the SSM plan.
    <bullet> Regarding the fifth and sixth points, the rule requires
corrective action as a result of an operating parameter deviation or
bag leak detector alarm. Corrective action must be conducted in
accordance with the operations, maintenance and monitoring plan.
Failure to take corrective action and to complete corrective action as
expeditiously as practicable is a violation of the operating standard.
    <bullet> Regarding the seventh point, a deviation that is the
result of a malfunction, to which the facility responds in accordance
to its SSM plan, is excluded as a violation.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the requirement that
capture and collection systems meet the criteria established by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for
hooding and ventilation systems. The commenters claimed EPA has not
shown that MACT floor facilities' hooding and ventilation systems met
ACGIH criteria so that the requirement is arbitrary; EPA should show
that the facilities met the ACGIH criteria. Several commenters stated
that because EPA has no data to support the requirement for ACGIH
criteria for capture and collection equipment for existing sources,
they recommended the requirement apply only to new sources. Other
commenters stated that although currently protecting work space air
quality, most existing systems would not meet ACGIH criteria, meaning
significant expenditures to upgrade those systems. The EPA likely did
not account for these costs in their economic analysis; they agree with
the commenters who stated that the requirement should be limited to new
or modified sources.
    Response: For affected sources and emission units that require an
air pollution control device, a capture and control system meeting
ACGIH criteria is necessary for occupational safety and to meet the
emission standards. The emission standards are based on systems that
effectively capture and contain emissions at the source (minimizing
fugitives) and convey them to the control device for removal. In
addition, a capture and control system meeting ACGIH criteria 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 considers an ACGIH capture and collection system to be part of MACT
floor technology for affected sources with add-on controls.
    Comment: One commenter supported not counting false alarms of the
bag leak detection system in the alarm time. Another commenter stated
that the monitoring and reporting requirements are reasonable in order
to confirm compliance, with the exception of bag leak detectors. The
commenter stated that a facility should not be penalized for rapid
response to an alarm and recommends that the actual time be counted and
delete the 1-hour minimum alarm time.
    Response: The rule has been clarified so that false alarms are not
counted and a 1-hour minimum has been retained in the final rule to
encourage proactive fabric filter maintenance.
    Comment: Several commenters did not want the labeling requirement.
They argued that, (1) The inspectors can get this information from the
OM&M plan in the office before entering the plant; (2) the labels will
be hard to maintain in a plant environment; (3) it creates opportunity
for violation with no commensurate benefit and increases/duplicates
regulatory paperwork; and (4) the labeling requirement generates safety
concerns.
    Response: The EPA believes that labeling requirements are necessary
for enforcement and operating purposes and should be retained due to
the complexity of the industry and the numerous possible facility
configurations (and emission units that could be combined within a
SAPU). Labeling will help prevent operators from charging the wrong
materials or improperly operating the units and will help inspectors in
identifying units and determining if the units are being properly
operated. However, EPA understands industry's concerns over the
implementation of the labeling requirements and has revised the
proposed rule to require labeling only at those affected sources and
emission units that can be operated in more than one mode and/or which
are physically very similar, including group 1 furnaces with and
without add-on controls, group 2 furnaces, scrap dryers/delacquering
kilns/decoating kilns, and in-line fluxers. In addition, the final rule
requires that labels contain only the identification of the unit and
the applicable operational standards. These revisions respond to
industry's concerns regarding increased regulatory paperwork with no
commensurate benefits while maintaining enforceability of the standards
since both operators and inspectors will

[[Page 15699]]

clearly know the operating standards/requirements of each emission
unit.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the requirement to
maintain the same flux injection schedule as used in performance tests.
One commenter stated that they should be given flexibility to develop
schedule procedures during performance tests subject to approval by the
permitting authority. According to one commenter, the requirement to
maintain the same flux injection schedule as used in performance tests,
which would be done under worst case conditions, would result in an
increase in HCL emissions and cause other negative environmental
impacts. Another commenter stated that this requirement will cause
increased HCL emissions for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces and will
restrict work practices to minimize chlorine use. The commenter
suggested a separate provision to maintain the same flux injection
schedule for baghouses with semi-continuous lime feed systems.
    One commenter wanted flux monitoring on a monthly basis and the
schedule requirement eliminated. The rule could be interpreted to
preclude a system with computerized monitoring of furnace operations/
controls with correlated emissions and online continuous emissions
calculations.
    Response: Owners or operators are required to conduct performance
tests under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur.
This is represented by the maximum reactive flux rate. The final rule
provides that sources may flux (on a lb per ton of feed/charge basis),
up to the limit established during a successful performance test, and
does not require maintaining the same schedule. The rule also does not
require owners or operators to use more flux than necessary to produce
a saleable product. These requirements will not lead to increased HC1
emissions.
    The standards for emission units performing reactive fluxing, all
of which are included in the SAPU affected source, were developed using
emissions data gathered during a complete cycle. Because of the
difference in cycle times and schedules, the EPA recognized the need to
develop emission limits for SAPUs that would account for overlapping
cycles of the emission units included in the emissions calculation and
a 3-day, 24-hour rolling average was selected as the maximum averaging
time required. Reactive flux monitoring on a monthly basis is not
acceptable in that it is inconsistent with the emission standards based
on 3-day, 24-hour rolling average and the established monitoring
parameter values or ranges derived during the performance test.
Monitoring over a period consistent with the basis of the emission
standards provides the necessary evidence of continuous compliance.
    The issue of flux injection rate and schedule is related to lime
injection practice for the fabric filter control systems. The final
rule provides operating requirements for the floor technology, which is
continuous lime injection systems with lime-injected fabric filters.
Owners/operators who want to use intermittent lime feed systems (as
opposed to continuous injection) must show compliance with the emission
limits and must apply to the permitting authority for approval of an
alternative lime addition monitoring procedure. The owners/operators
must provide information as necessary to show that the applicable
emission limits will be achieved on a continuous basis.
    The rule does not preclude the use of computerized systems that
correlate controls and operating practices with emissions and calculate
emissions on a continuous basis once this approach is approved by the
permitting authority and incorporated into the site-specific OM&M plan.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the +25  deg.F
associated with the inlet temperature limit for fabric filters
established during the initial performance test. According to two
commenters, the operating temperature of these fabric filters will vary
more than 25  deg.F due to changes in ambient temperatures. This
creates an unnecessary risk of violation and provides no environmental
benefit. Another commenter stated that instead of the temperature
requirement, electrochemical HCl sensors for automatic lime feed
adjustment and other automatic systems should be considered to allow
greater operating flexibility. One commenter stated that in-line
fluxers are not regulated for dioxin emissions and therefore do not
need a temperature limit.
    Response: The proposed rule has been changed to eliminate this
requirement for fabric filters only controlling in-line fluxers since
these units operate at temperatures that are close to ambient
temperature. For other affected sources and emission units, or fluxers
ducted to a device co-controlling other sources, the +25  deg.F limit
is retained. Operators would be expected to add dilution air or water
sprays as required to maintain the fabric filter inlet temperature
within the range. Also, performance tests could be conducted at worst
case conditions. For example, performance tests could be conducted so
that the inlet temperature is much higher than the normal operating
inlet temperature (450  deg.F vs 380  deg.F, for example, thus
providing a larger operating range). Dioxin formation is strongly
influenced by the temperature at the fabric filter inlet, and
temperature control is the means of preventing D/F formation (and
enhancing HCl removal) in the fabric filter. Temperature is also a
parameter which is monitored to ensure continuous compliance between
periodic performance tests. This is because it is an indicator of
control device performance for D/F and HCl emissions.
    Comment: According to one commenter, owners and operators could
demonstrate compliance with the HCl emission limit by monitoring total
chlorine input and showing it to be less than the emission limit.
    Response: The EPA agrees that, for in-line fluxers and group 1
furnaces processing only clean charge, operators may demonstrate
compliance (in lieu of performance tests) by demonstrating that
reactive flux injection is limited to a rate which would not exceed the
standard if emitted in its entirety.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Several comments were received that requested more
flexibility in the monitoring requirements aimed at reducing the burden
to the industry:
    <bullet> One commenter stated that the operating and monitoring
requirements of Secs. 63.1506 and 63.1510 are too prescriptive and not
consistent with preamble statements regarding flexibility.
    <bullet> Several commenters stated that EPA should allow
alternative site-specific monitoring and operating plans to improve
feasibility and cost effectiveness.
    <bullet> Another commenter stated that separate provisions should
be included in each of Secs. 63.1506 and 63.1510 allowing facilities to
develop alternative procedures approvable by the applicable permitting
agency.
    <bullet> Two commenters claimed the provisions will result in
burdensome, labor-intensive requirements without commensurate benefit
to the environment.
    <bullet> Another commenter with a rolling mill facility claimed
their plant is operating at demonstrated low emission levels and seeks
monitoring plan flexibility to allow their facility to continue in its
present mode. Referring to this plant, another commenter stated that
the plant has developed a correlation between opacity and PM which has
been used for over a year, in accordance with a regulatory order. This
monitoring has been approved by EPA

[[Page 15700]]

and the local agency and is federally enforceable.
    Response: The final rule has been written to incorporate more
flexibility in the monitoring requirements:
    <bullet> With regard to the commenters' first, second, and third
points, the final rule includes explicit provisions for obtaining
approval to use alternative monitoring procedures and lists the types
of information needed in the application. It includes data or
information to justify the request such as technical or economic
infeasibility, a description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirements including operating parameters and how the limit for SAPUs
(if SAPUs are included in the application) will be calculated, and
information as to how the alternative monitoring requirements would
provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the
standards.
    In addition, in response to the numerous comments received
regarding the proposed monitoring and operating provisions, the final
rule has been written to provide more flexibility to individual
facilities in developing their OM&M plans and for approval of site-
specific monitoring and operating alternatives, within EPA guidelines,
by the permitting authority. Additional comment responses below discuss
some specific changes made in the final rule.
    <bullet> Regarding the fourth point, the monitoring requirements
are necessary to demonstrate continuous compliance and, as such, are
environmentally beneficial. Most, if not all, of the monitoring data
collection or logging can be computerized and, therefore, will not be
labor intensive.
    <bullet> Regarding the fifth point, specifically, the final rule
allows the owner/operator of a plant to apply to the Administrator for
alternative monitoring, if necessary, or document their current
procedures in the facility OM&M plan. The OM&M plan is submitted to the
permitting authority for review and approval. The final rule gives more
flexibility, for example, through guidance for scrap inspections (used
in operating limits and monitoring) that is less prescriptive and more
options for lime injection monitoring.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the monitoring frequencies
and data quality objectives are too restrictive and specific for
application across a diverse industry and bear no relevance to the
emission standards or ensuring proper operation of emission controls.
Another commenter agreed with the selection of the monitoring
parameters in the proposed rule, but stated that the monitoring
intervals are too frequent.
    Response: Monitoring frequency requirements are related to the need
for evidence of continuous compliance, and frequent readings are
essential to provide the demonstration. However, the final rule changes
the frequency of recording monitored parameter values from that
proposed. For example, the frequency of recording fluxing rates has
been reduced by requiring readings only during periods when flux
additions are occurring. Additional options included for monitoring
free-flowing lime change those monitoring and frequency requirements
and increase the monitoring options. Furthermore, the provisions for
site-specific OM&M plans approved by permitting authorities allow
opportunity for adjustment of monitoring, within EPA guidelines, to fit
site-specific conditions. Comments dealing with data-quality objectives
for specific monitored parameters are addressed in more detail below.
    Comment: Several commenters argued that the requirements for
accuracy of 1 percent when applied to feed/charge weight and flux
injection rates are overly stringent and burdensome and create an
unnecessary increment for a violation.
    Response: The EPA has retained the 1 percent accuracy requirement
in the final rule. However, the EPA recognizes there may be situations
in which 1 percent accuracy for feed/charge weight and chlorine flux
injection rate is not workable. An example of this may be operating at
a very low flux injection rate. The final rule has been written to
allow the permitting authority to approve alternative accuracy
requirements for monitoring equipment, on a site-specific basis, in
situations where the 1 percent accuracy requirement is not workable and
where the owner/operator provides data/information to substantiate that
emission standards will be achieved on a continuous basis.
    Comment: In comments on accuracy of performance test measurements
and feed/charge weight measurements:
    <bullet> One commenter stated that the EPA reference methods are
not better than 10 percent repeatable, so the requirement for 1 percent
accuracy in charge weight is arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome.
    <bullet> Another commenter requested less stringency in the
accuracy requirement for the sources whose emissions are well under the
emission limit, noting that the expected accuracy of Methods 26A and 5
is 10 percent. This commenter suggested that the charge weight
monitoring be restricted to only those sources having to comply with a
lb/ton emission limit.
    <bullet> An additional commenter stated that an aggregate accuracy
of 5 percent is more representative of reproducible floor practice.
    <bullet> Another commenter wanted the weight monitoring not to be
required for each emission unit, but allowed to be aggregated across
emission units.
    Response: The EPA considered the measurement accuracy issue raised
by the commenters and addresses their points as follows:
    <bullet> With regard to the commenters' first, second, and third
points concerning the test method accuracy, the EPA notes that the
variability in the test methods, process, and control equipment is
incorporated into the testing results upon which the emission limits
are based. The limits have been established to accommodate that
variability. Given that the emission limits are on a lb-of-emission/
ton-of-feed (or charge) basis, it is also in the owner/operators best
interest to make an accurate weight determination because inaccurate
measurements could cause them to be out of compliance. As noted in the
previous response, the final rule provides additional flexibility with
regard to feed/charge measurement in situations where the 1 percent
accuracy is not workable.
    <bullet> Regarding the fourth point, weight monitoring is required
because the emission limits are based on lb/ton of feed/charge or
product. Under the site-specific OM&M plans, individual emission units
of the same type may have different allowable emission rates based on
the presence of add-on control devices, fluxing practice, and feed/
charge practices. The only way to determine compliance is to monitor
weights for individual emission units.
    Comment: Commenters wanted the compliance date to be 3 years after
promulgation rather than ``on or after the date of the initial
performance test.'' They argued that:
    <bullet> Carrying out performance tests prior to the end of 3 years
is essential to completing the monumental job; but they do not like
having to comply ``on and after the date of the initial performance
test'' which could be the emission test program for the SAPU.
    <bullet> The submittal deadlines for the OM&M plan, the SAPU
emission plan, and the site-specific test plan are inconsistent with
each other; they wanted EPA to remove all the interim compliance
requirements to give the necessary flexibility to evaluate and agree
with the permitting agency on compliance requirements before the 3-year
deadline.
    Response: A facility must be in compliance on and after the date of
the

[[Page 15701]]

initial performance test. The date of that initial performance test,
for existing sources, may be up to 3 years after the promulgation date
of the standard. For existing SAPUs, the initial performance test is
considered to be the date of approval of the OM&M plan by the
permitting authority.
    In response to the comments regarding the inconsistent plan
requirements and dates for submittal, the EPA has revised and clarified
those requirements. The final rule requires the owner/operator of a
SAPU to perform tests that will define the operating modes of the
controlled and uncontrolled emission units within the SAPU, and to
define which parameters to monitor to demonstrate continuous
compliance. These same tests can be used to measure the emission rates
from the affected sources and emission units for performance test
purposes. A site-specific test plan for this program must be submitted
to the permitting authority for review and approval before the tests
are conducted. The plan must identify the parameters to be monitored
during the tests, the test methods to be used, the units to be tested,
and planned operating modes for each unit during the tests. After the
test plan has been approved by the permitting authority, the owner/
operator is required to notify the Administrator of the test dates.
    The results from this test program, including the emission rates
measured, values of parameters monitored, monitoring parameters
selected by the owner/operator for compliance demonstration, and values
of the parameters to be used as operating limits must be submitted to
the permitting authority for review and approval. As a result of the
review, the permitting authority may request changes to selected
monitoring parameters or values of the parameters used for compliance
demonstration if it is determined the parameters or values do not
provide an adequate means of demonstrating continuous compliance. When
all of these elements are approved by the permitting authority, the
owner/operator prepares an OM&M plan using the approved monitoring
scheme and submits the OM&M plan to the permitting authority for
approval. The compliance date is the approval date of the OM&M plan.
The approved OM&M plan will be included by reference in the operating
permit.
    The latest date for an existing facility to achieve compliance is 3
years from the date the standard is promulgated. The OM&M plan must be
submitted to the permitting authority for approval no later than 6
months before the planned compliance date. Given these conditions and
lead times for preparing plans and conducting tests, it is clear that
owner/operators must act expeditiously to develop test plans and
execute the test programs.
    Facilities that choose to comply by demonstrating that each
emission unit in the SAPU meets the emission limit for that unit, and
by monitoring the parameters as designated in the rule for each
emission unit and control device, are also required to develop a test
plan and notify the permitting authority of the test date(s).
    Comment: One commenter stated that inspection of lime feed systems
once per 8-hour shift and more frequently when found to be plugged may
be difficult, arguing that visual inspection at silo and bin tops is
dangerous. The commenter suggested alternate language that reduces the
required checks from every 4 hours for 3 days, if plugged, to checks
for only 2 consecutive 4-hour periods following restoration to free
flow. Another commenter also disagreed with the requirement to inspect
every 4 hours for 3 days, even if the problem is corrected earlier.
    Response: Based on the comments received the final rule has been
written to provide other options to demonstrate free-flowing lime. In
addition to the option to perform visual checks to verify free-flowing
lime, the owner/operator may use devices such as load cells to
demonstrate this via weight changes in lime feed bins, use pressure
sensors in pneumatic conveying systems to distinguish low or ``no
flow'' conditions, continuously monitor lime feed rate, use an HCl
monitoring device at the fabric filter outlet, or another method
subject to approval by the permitting authority.
    Comment: One commenter requested that lime feeder inspection
requirements and corrective action requirements demonstrate compliance
and that discovery and correction of a blockage or feeder setting drift
not be an automatic violation. The commenter suggested that the rule be
rewritten to require corrective action when necessary and not to make
blockage or feeder setting drift a violation.
    Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, the
final rule provides additional options for monitoring the lime system
to maintain free-flowing lime. One of those options, the HCl monitor,
provides a direct indication of continued effective operation of the
control system which is the desired goal of any monitoring option
selected. Other options that detect lime feeder blockages are not
direct and immediate performance indicators, so the time until remedied
is a critical variable. For this reason, EPA requires maintenance of
free flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times. Blockages
that occur as a result of equipment breakage or failure would
potentially fall under the malfunction provision, and if determined to
be a malfunction, would be covered by the SSM plan and would not be a
violation, if corrected in accordance with the SSM plan. However,
continued and frequent blockages indicate a system design and operating
problem rather than a malfunction.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed regulatory
requirements for scrap inspection programs. They stated that the
requirements are too onerous, expensive, complex and overly
prescriptive, and further, some provisions are not technically feasible
or cannot be reasonably met. Three of the commenters suggested that the
broadly stated scrap inspection requirements provided in the preamble
to the proposed rule could be acceptable, and that approval of site-
specific plans by the permitting authority would be a more acceptable
requirement. Two commenters also stated that the scrap should not have
to be inspected if the necessary control systems are in place.
According to these commenters, inspection is only needed for control by
work practices or pollution prevention. They stated that the EPA needs
to be clearer as to which sources are covered; the preamble says all
furnaces and the rule says uncontrolled group 1 furnaces.
    Response: The scrap inspection program requirements apply only to
those facilities that elect to use such a program as a monitoring
technique to ensure the oil and coatings content of scrap charged to a
group 1 furnace stays below levels established during the performance
tests. Such a program could apply to facilities that have only
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, or facilities that have both add-on
controlled and uncontrolled group 1 furnaces.
    As a result of the numerous comments received regarding the scrap
inspection program elements, the EPA has modified the proposed rule.
The detailed requirements contained in the proposed rule have been
deleted and the general scrap inspection guidelines provided in the
proposal preamble have been adopted. This change will provide more
flexibility to owner/operators to tailor the program to specific
conditions for their facility. The scrap inspection program, if
selected by the facility, will become part of the site-specific OM&M
plan. The specific inspection program elements, which must be
consistent

[[Page 15702]]

with guidance in the rule, will be approvable by the permitting
authority as part of the site-specific OM&M plan and will be
enforceable under the facility's permit.
    Comment: Several commenters wanted EPA to allow testing one
representative unit from a group of similar sources, that is one unit
to represent similar furnaces or in-line fluxers, instead of having to
test every emission unit. One of the commenters stated that this
practice should be allowed for either controlled or uncontrolled units.
Several commenters claim this approach is widely used under existing
State permits and has been used by EPA in other NESHAPs. Commenters
claimed that it would significantly reduce costs, provide flexibility,
and provide more cost-effective test programs.
    Response: Based on the comments received, the EPA is modifying the
testing requirements to allow representative or similar uncontrolled
emission units that use like charge and flux materials to be tested,
instead of requiring each unit to be tested. Testing of representative
or similar units may be used provided approval is obtained from the
applicable permitting authority. The representative unit selected for
testing must be subject to the same work practices and be of the same
design as those emission units it is representing for test purposes.
The representative unit must be tested under worst case conditions. It
is up to the owner/operator to define the worst case scenario(s) for
review and approval by the permitting authority. At least one of each
different style unit must be tested. Each add-on control device
controlling emissions from an affected source or emission unit must be
tested.

E. Impacts

    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the results of EPA's
regulatory impact analysis and believed that EPA underestimated the
cost of the rule. The commenters identified the following as
deficiencies in the impact analysis:
    <bullet> The EPA underestimated the number of area sources that
would be impacted as a result of the area source D/F standard. In
particular, owners or operators of sweat furnaces, die casting
facilities, foundries, and extruders were identified as potentially
affected area sources that were either excluded or not adequately
accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, the commenters claimed that
the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and title V
permit requirements would impose a significant burden on area sources.
    <bullet> The EPA understated the number of small businesses that
would be affected by the rule and, as a result, EPA's analysis of
impacts on small entities was not adequate. According to several of the
commenters, the small business impacts analysis underestimated small
business impacts because it did not accurately account for sweat
furnaces, die casting facilities, foundries, and extrusion facilities,
many of which are small businesses and would be subject to the rule.
The commenters also claimed that the proposed monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and title V permit requirements would impose
significant burdens on these small businesses. They argued that the
rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities and that EPA must, therefore, perform a regulatory flexibility
analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    <bullet> Commenters took issue with the methods and assumptions
used by EPA to estimate the costs and economic impacts of the rule,
including failure to adequately account for the large number of
affected area sources, title V permitting costs for area sources, and
underestimating performance test costs due to the assumption of shared
stacks. As a result, the commenters state that EPA's costs and economic
impact estimates are too low. They argue that the annualized cost of
the rule exceeds $100 million and is, therefore, a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Response: Based on the numerous comments received regarding the
regulatory impact analysis, the EPA has reviewed, revised, updated, and
refined the analysis to address commenters' points:
    <bullet> With regard to commenters' first point, for the proposed
rule, the EPA used the information available on area sources of D/F
emissions and requested additional information on the number of area
sources, levels of emissions from these sources, the level of control
currently employed, and the number of area sources that are also small
businesses. In response to the comments on the proposed rule and using
the information provided by commenters on sweat furnaces, die casting
facilities and foundries, EPA has reassessed the cost of the rule on
area sources (see Docket No. A-92-61). In addition, EPA has clarified
and, in some cases, revised the proposed rule to address commenter
concerns that the proposed rule will be overly burdensome for area
sources. These changes include clarifications or revisions in the
applicability of the rule, the performance testing requirements, the
scrap inspection program, and giving the State permitting authorities
the discretion to defer the requirements for a title V permit for area
sources. On the basis of the information submitted to EPA during the
public comment period and changes made to the proposed rule that narrow
the applicability to facilities that are area sources, primarily
aluminum extruders, die casters, and foundries, the EPA believes the
number of those facilities subject to the rule to be small.
    <bullet> Regarding the commenters' second point, after reviewing
the comments on the small business impacts of the proposed rule and
using the information on sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, and
foundries provided by commenters, EPA has refined its small business
impacts analysis (see Docket No. A-92-61). The analysis shows that the
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small businesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required. The small business impact analysis shows that the impact to
small businesses operating sweat furnaces, and to small firms in the
aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries is minimal.
    <bullet> Regarding the commenters' third point, EPA considered the
comments objecting to the costing methods and assumptions it used to
estimate the impacts of the proposed rule. The EPA has reexamined its
cost estimating procedures and believes that overall it has overstated
the cost of the proposed rule. However, in view of the changes in the
proposed rule and to incorporate revisions in the estimated number of
affected area sources, EPA has updated its estimate of the cost of the
rule (see Docket No. A-92-61). The revised cost of the rule is below
the $100 million per year threshold, therefore, the rule is not a
significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866.

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    In response to comments received on the proposed rule and after
further analysis, the following changes have been made:
    Applicability. The applicability section has been clarified to
distinguish the affected sources at major sources from those at area
sources. Chip dryers and scrap shredders have been changed to ``thermal
chip dryers'' and ``aluminum scrap shredders'' to more precisely define
the type of equipment covered by the rule. A new secondary aluminum
processing unit (SAPU) has been added to the list of affected sources;
new group 1 furnaces and new

[[Page 15703]]

in-line fluxers have been removed from the list of affected sources but
are covered as emission units within new SAPUs. This change enables
simultaneously constructed new emission units to meet emission
standards on an analogous basis to existing SAPUs and does not affect
the required level of control or continuous compliance. Subject to
certain limitations, manufacturers of aluminum die castings, aluminum
foundries, and aluminum extruders have been exempted from the rule. The
final rule contains explicit language exempting research and
development equipment.
    The final rule also gives States the discretion to defer the
requirement for secondary aluminum production area sources to obtain a
title V permit. This discretion may reduce the burden of the rule on
both area sources and States, without decreasing control requirements
or increasing emissions.
    The EPA's authority for establishing the deferrals is section
502(a) of the CAA, which allows EPA to exempt non-major sources from
the permitting requirement if EPA finds that compliance with title V is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the sources.
The General Provisions implementing section 112 of the CAA provide that
unless EPA explicitly exempts or defers area sources subject to a
NESHAP from the title V permitting requirement, they are subject to
permitting (40 CFR section 63.1(c)(2)(iii)). As a result, under 40 CFR
sections 70.3(b)(2), 71.3(b)(2), and 63.1(c)(2), we are to determine
whether area sources will be required to obtain title V permits when we
adopt the underlying NESHAP. The EPA has previously allowed permitting
authorities to defer permit applications for area sources in a series
of rulemakings (60 FR 29484, June 5, 1995; 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996;
and 64 FR 37683, July 13, 1999).
    When EPA initially established the ability of permitting
authorities to defer area sources from title V, the Agency stated that
it would decide whether to adopt permanent exemptions by the time
deferrals expired, and that it would continue to evaluate permitting
authorities' implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP requirements
for area sources not covered by title V permits, the likely benefit of
permitting such sources, and the costs and other burdens on such
sources associated with obtaining title V permits. Many permitting
authorities are struggling to issue in a timely fashion initial title V
permits to major sources and other sources that have been subject to
the permitting requirements since the beginning of the program, and we
are concerned about the impact on permitting authorities of subjecting
area sources to the permit application deadlines. Therefore, to be
consistent with the previously allowed deferrals of permit applications
for area sources by permitting authorities, the most reasonable
approach is to defer the requirement for title V permitting for area
sources in the secondary aluminum production source category until
December 9, 2004.
    As a result, today's action defers the requirement for title V
permitting for area sources in the secondary aluminum production source
category until December 9, 2004. The deferral is not an automatic
benefit provided to the sources. Rather, permitting authorities may
exercise their discretion to either defer the area sources, or to
require them to apply for and obtain part 70 permits. Some permitting
authorities may decide that area sources in the subject source category
warrant permitting mechanisms (such as the use of general permits or
``permits by rule'') that minimize the burden on both the permitting
authoring and the source.
    For area sources that are not covered by an effective approved part
70 program and are subject to the EPA-administered part 71 permitting
program, today's action also defers those area sources subject to the
secondary aluminum production NESHAP from permitting under part 71
until December 9, 2004.
    Definitions. The definitions of clean charge, fluxing, reactive
fluxing, aluminum scrap shredder, secondary aluminum processing unit,
secondary aluminum production facility and thermal chip dryer have been
revised and clarified to reflect the meanings intended at proposal.
Definitions of internal runaround and cover flux have been added to the
final rule.
    Emission standards. In response to comments from the regulated
community, a standard for new SAPUs has been included in the final
rule. Also, for sweat furnace operations, the final rule provides an
alternative to the emission standard that does not require emission
testing. The alternative is expressed in terms of design and operating
parameters of afterburners that ensure the emission limit will be
achieved.
    Operating requirements. The compliance date for SAPUs has been
clarified. Lime addition requirements have been specified only for
continuous lime injection systems. Lime addition requirements for
intermittent lime addition have been eliminated because the MACT floor
control technology, upon which the emission standards are based,
includes continuous lime injection. Provisions for obtaining approval
for intermittent lime addition and establishing operating requirements
have been added to the rule.
    Labeling requirements have been redefined to include only the
emission unit or affected source identification and the applicable
operating requirements and pollution prevention parameters. In
addition, the applicability of the labeling requirement has been
narrowed to specific affected sources and emission units.
    The final rule allows the option to demonstrate compliance for
specific affected sources on the basis of aluminum production as
opposed to feed/charge. Owners or operators of SAPUs that choose to
demonstrate compliance on the basis of aluminum production as opposed
to feed/charge must account for aluminum production on an emission unit
by emission unit basis. This option will provide additional flexibility
for existing measurement equipment and will not increase HAP emissions.
The inlet temperature limit has been eliminated for fabric filters that
control only in-line fluxers because these fabric filters typically
operate at near-ambient temperatures.
    Monitoring requirements. The final rule includes options for
permitting authority approval of measuring devices of alternative
accuracy in cases where the use of devices of specified accuracy is not
workable, such as measurement of very low chlorine flow rates.
Additional options for ascertaining the free flow of lime, including
the use of load cells, flow sensors and HCl concentration sensors, have
been added to the final rule. Specific temperature monitoring relative
accuracy and calibration drift requirements have been eliminated
because they are not necessary. The requirements for scrap inspection
plans have been made less prescriptive to allow for a wider range of
situations as experienced in the secondary aluminum production
industry. Procedures for obtaining approval of alternative site-
specific monitoring practices have been included to increase
flexibility.
    Performance testing. The final rule eliminates the requirement for
repeat performance testing at area sources for cost and economic
reasons, but maintains the operating, maintenance, and monitoring
(OM&M) plan requirement to ensure continuous compliance through
monitoring of appropriate parameters. Sweat furnaces equipped with
afterburners meeting required design specifications are not

[[Page 15704]]

subject to performance testing requirements in the final rule. The rule
has also been changed to reduce the cost of performance testing by
allowing owners or operators to conduct worst case performance tests on
a single affected source or emission unit that is not equipped with an
add-on control device to represent the performance of other sources of
the same design and operating characteristics.

V. Summary of Impacts

    In response to comments that EPA's assessment of impacts was not
adequate, and as a result of revisions made to the rule to provide more
flexibility to affected sources and to minimize the burden on area
sources, EPA reanalyzed the impacts of the rule.

A. Air Quality Impacts

    At the current level of control, emissions of HAPs and other
pollutants are estimated to be approximately 28,700 Mg/yr (31,600 tpy).
Of these emissions, 16,400 Mg/yr (18,100 tpy) are HAPs. The EPA
estimates that implementation of the NESHAP will reduce all pollutants
by 14,200 Mg/yr (15,600 tpy) and HAP emissions would be reduced by
about 11,300 Mg/yr (12,400 tpy). Baseline emissions and emission
reductions are summarized by pollutant in Table 1 below.

                     Table 1.--Nationwide Annual Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Baseline      Emissions     Baseline      Emissions
                        Pollutant                           emissions     reduction     emissions     reduction
                                                             (Mg/yr)       (Mg/yr)        (tpy)         (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC \1\.................................................        3,782             0         4,169             0
D/F.....................................................   0.54 kg/yr    0.43 kg/yr    1.19 lb/yr    0.94 lb/yr
HCl.....................................................       15,365        11,224        16,902        12,372
Cl<INF>2</INF>.....................................................          996        NQ \2\         1,098            NQ
POM.....................................................           37             9            41            10
HAP Metals..............................................           58            36            64            40
PM......................................................        8,508         2,889         9,379         3,185
Total:
    HAPs................................................       16,425        11,269        18,106        12,422
    PM..................................................        8,508         2,889         9,379         3,185
    HAPS and other pollutants...........................       28,657        14,158        31,589       15,607
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ THC is a surrogate for organic HAPs.
\2\ NQ Not quantified due to lack of emissions data.

    There are no THC emission reductions expected because all sources
with a THC emission limit are already equipped with the technology
representative of the MACT-level of control.
    The estimated emissions reductions represent the minimum that will
be achieved by the final rule since they are based on a reduction in
baseline emissions to a level equal to the promulgated emission limit.
In reality, if emission control equipment is installed to achieve
compliance with the rule, emissions will likely be reduced to a level
below the emission limit and the actual emissions reductions will be
larger than the estimates. In addition, emissions reductions are also
expected for other pollutants for which there are no specific emission
limits. Although these potential emissions reductions were not
quantified, emission controls installed to reduce HCl emissions are
likely to also reduce Cl<INF>2</INF> emissions, the lime added or
injected to fabric filters would reduce fluoride as well as chloride
emissions, and fabric filters installed to meet PM emission limits also
would reduce HAP metal and polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions.
For example, emission test data indicate that a fabric filter will
reduce HAP metal emissions by approximately the same percentage as PM
emissions. If the same reduction (61.4 percent from the baseline,
taking into account that some sources already have these controls) is
applied to HAP metal emissions, emission reductions of about 39.5 tpy
from the estimated baseline level of 64.4 tpy would be achieved.

B. Economic Impacts

    EPA revised the economic impact analysis (EIA) to consider revised
estimates of costs due to changes in the requirements of the rule
between proposal and promulgation as well as additional information
received concerning potential impacts of the regulation to owners of
sweat furnaces, aluminum die casting facilities, and aluminum
foundries. Due to the number of facilities and variety of processes
used in the affected industries, model plants were developed to
categorize facilities based on possible combinations of processes that
are performed. These model plant categories were used to estimate
applicable emission control costs, including the costs of monitoring,
reporting, and record keeping (MRR). Sixteen model plants were created
and annual compliance costs were calculated for each.
    Estimates of total capital and total annualized costs for each
model plant and nationwide are shown in Table 2. Total nationwide
annualized costs for this regulation are estimated at $76.7 million.
The model plant (1-8) control cost estimates include control device
costs, auxiliary equipment, and direct and indirect installation costs,
but do not include monitoring costs. The nationwide annual costs
include costs for monitoring, reporting, and record keeping estimated
at $9.2 million annually. (All values are shown in 1994 dollars.)

[[Page 15705]]

                         Table 2.--Estimated Capital and Annualized Costs by Model Plant
                                           [Thousands of 1994 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Per facility               Nationwide
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                        Model plants                            Capital       Annual      Capital       Annual
                                                                 costs        costs        costs        costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Plant 1...............................................         $805         $380      $24,960      $11,766
Model Plant 2...............................................          950          362        9,500        3,621
Model Plant 3...............................................        1,833          702       12,832        4,911
Model Plant 4...............................................        2,944        1,203       26,492       10,829
Model Plant 5...............................................        1,441          851       14,409        8,510
Model Plant 6...............................................          976          671        6,833        4,696
Model Plant 7...............................................          198          134        1,188          807
Model Plant 8...............................................            0            0            0            0
MRR for Model Plants 1-8....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,885
Sweat Furnace 1.............................................            0            0            0          133
Sweat Furnace 2.............................................            0            0            0          299
Sweat Furnace 3.............................................            9           24        9,167       23,489
Die Casting 1...............................................            0            4            0           46
Die Casting 2...............................................            0            4            0          364
Die Casting 3...............................................            0            4            0          241
Foundry 1...................................................            0            4            0        2,489
Foundry 2...................................................            0            4            0          622
                                                                                       -------------------------
    Nationwide Total........................................  ...........  ...........      105,381       76,708
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms producing products in SIC codes 3341 Secondary Smelting and
Refining of Nonferrous Metals, 3353 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil,
3334 Primary Aluminum Production, 3354 Aluminum Extruded Product
Manufacturing, 3363 Aluminum Die-Casting, 3365 Aluminum Foundries, 4953
Refuse Systems, 5093 Scrap and Waste Materials, and 5015 Motor Vehicle
Parts--Used may be affected by this regulation.
    A market impact analysis was completed for secondary aluminum
producing firms. Table 3 presents primary and secondary market impacts
estimated for the secondary aluminum market. Primary market impacts
include estimated changes in price, domestic production, industry
revenues, and potential facility closures. Secondary market impacts
relate to potential employment losses, decreases in exports, and
increases in imports.

  Table 3.--Secondary Aluminum Production Primary and Secondary Market
                                 Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Estimated
                                                                impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Market Impacts:
  Price Increase (Percent)...................................       0.64
  Production Decrease (Percent)..............................     [0.40]
  Industry Revenues--Increase in Value of Domestic Shipments        0.24
   (Percent).................................................
  Potential Facility Closures................................       0-1*
Secondary Market Impacts:

                         Labor Market

Potential Employee Reductions:
  Number of workers..........................................         94
  Percent decrease...........................................     [0.40]
International Trade:
  Import increase (Percent)..................................       1.51
  Export decrease (Percent)..................................    [0.22]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreases are shown in brackets [ ].
*Firm or facility closures are unlikely. However, if one makes a number
  of worst case assumptions, one facility or firm closure is possible.

    In general, the economic impacts of this regulation are expected to
be minimal to the secondary aluminum industry with price increases and
production decreases of less than one percent. A market price increase
of 0.64 percent and domestic production decrease of 0.40 percent are
predicted. Revenues or the value of domestic shipments for the industry
are expected to increase by 0.24 percent. Individual facilities or
firms within the industry may experience revenue increases or
decreases, but on average the industry revenues are anticipated to
increase slightly with this regulation. Facility or firm closures are
unlikely to occur as a result of this regulation. However, if a number
of worst case assumptions are made, one could conclude that a single
facility may close as a result of the regulation.
    Approximately 94 workers may face employment displacement as a
result of the regulation. This job loss estimate results from the
decrease in production expected to result from the regulation and does
not consider any employment increases that may occur relative to
emission control. Exports of secondary aluminum products to other
countries are expected to decline by 0.22 percent while imports of
secondary aluminum are expected to increase 1.51 percent.
    Since the impact of the regulation is anticipated to be minimal to
firms owning sweat furnaces, aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries,
and secondary aluminum dross reclamation facilities (categorized as
model plants 7 and 8), a streamlined economic impact analysis was
completed for these markets. This analysis computes the estimated cost
of the regulation as a percentage of annual revenues. The cost to sales
ratio refers to the change in annualized control costs divided by the
sales revenues of a particular good or goods being produced in the
process for which additional pollution control is required. It can be
estimated for either individual firms or as an average for some set of
firms such as affected small firms. While it has different significance
for different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential
impact. If costs for the individual (or group) of firms are completely
passed on to the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, it is an
estimate of the price change (in percentage form after

[[Page 15706]]

multiplying the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the
producer, it is an estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage
form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of costs to
sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the
market, and profit to sales ratios are among the obvious factors that
may influence the significance of any particular cost to sales ratio
for an individual facility. This analysis was completed on a model
plant basis using estimated annual revenues and for a sample of firms
using actual company revenue data. A cost to sales ratio of 3 percent
or above is an indicator of the potential for significant economic
impact for firms in the industries affected by this rule. The results
of these analyses are shown in Table 4.
    As shown in Table 4, the cost to sales ratios using both model
plant data and actual facility data are substantially below one percent
for aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and firms operating sweat
furnaces. This indicates that firms in these industries are not likely
to incur significant economic impacts as a result of this regulation.

    Table 4.--Cost to Sales Ratios for Aluminum Die Casting, Aluminum
 Foundries, Firms Owning Sweat Furnaces, and Firms Owning Aluminum Dross
                         Reclamation Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Cost to
                                                                 sales
                         Description                             ratios
                                                                  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms Operating Sweat Furnaces Model Plant Data:
    Sweat Furnace 1..........................................       0.16
    Sweat Furnace 2..........................................       0.06
    Sweat Furnace 3..........................................       0.08
    Average Actual Firm Data.................................       0.01
Aluminum Die Casting Model Plant Data:
    Model Plant 1............................................       0.01
    Model Plant 2............................................       0.01
    Model Plant 3............................................       0.04
    Average Actual Firm Data.................................       0.04
Aluminum Foundries Model Plant Data:
    Model Plant 1............................................       0.16
    Model Plant 2............................................       0.04
    Average Actual Firm Data.................................       0.03
Secondary Aluminum Dross Reclamation Facilities for Model
 Plants 7 and 8 Model Plant Data:
    Model Plant 7............................................       1.08
    Model Plant 8............................................       0.07
Average Actual Firm Data:
    Model Plant 7............................................       0.73
    Model Plant 8............................................       0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost to sales ratios for secondary aluminum dross reclamation
facilities (model plants 7 and 8) approximate or are less than one
percent on a model plant and actual firm data basis. These firms are
also not anticipated to incur significant economic impacts as a result
of this regulation. For further information, please see Economic Impact
For the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, Final Report, October 1999.

C. Non-Air Health and Environmental Impacts

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the NESHAP is
based on air pollution control systems which are of the dry type (e.g.,
afterburners and fabric filters), and there are no water pollution
impacts resulting from their use. Solid waste generated by fabric
filters in the form of particulate matter (including HAP metals and
lime from fabric filters) is typically disposed of by landfilling. With
the addition of fabric filters and lime conditioned fabric filters, the
amount of solid waste is expected to increase by about 97,904 Mg/yr
(107,921 tpy) nationwide. The increase in solid waste is estimated as
the sum of the annual reduction in PM emissions and the annual increase
in the use of lime in lime-injected fabric filters.
    Implementation of the NESHAP will aid in reducing aerial deposition
of D/F and HAP metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury), will substantially
reduce ambient concentrations of HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF>, and will
reduce emissions.

D. Energy Impacts

    Operating fabric filters and afterburners require the use of
electrical energy to operate fans that move the gas stream. The
additional electrical energy requirements are estimated at 78 million
kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr), or 282 terajoules per year (TJ/yr),
over current requirements. Afterburners may also use natural gas as
fuel. Approximately 325,500 kilocubic feet per year (kft<SUP>3</SUP>/
yr) or 322 billion British thermal units (Btu)/yr (340 TJ/yr) of
additional natural gas will be required.
    The increased energy requirements for facilities will result in an
increase in utility emissions as more energy is generated. Nationwide
emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), and nitrogen oxides
(NO<INF>X</INF>) from electric power plants are estimated to increase
by 8.1 Mg/yr (8.9 tpy), 323 Mg/yr (356 tpy), and 161 Mg/yr (178 tpy),
respectively.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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. This
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``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 entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation 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.
    In response to comments that the rule as proposed would result in
adverse impacts to sources in the secondary aluminum production
industry as well as result in costs in excess of $100 million, EPA
reexamined the cost of the rule. In view of the changes in the rule
that have been made since proposal to clarify applicability as well as
the requirements of the rule and to provide greater flexibility in the
rule, EPA finds that the cost of the final rule is below $100 million.
Because the projected annual costs (including monitoring) for this
NESHAP are less than $100 million, a regulatory impact analysis has not
been prepared. However, because of concerns expressed by affected
facilities regarding the potential for adverse economic impacts, EPA
submitted this

[[Page 15707]]

final regulation to OMB for review. Any written comments are included
in the docket listed under ADDRESSES.

C. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

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

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

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
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. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials,
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA
must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official
stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a
meaningful and timely manner.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
This determination has been made since none of the affected facilities
under this final rule are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order
do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State and local
officials in developing the proposed rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small 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 this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year, nor does the rule significantly or uniquely
impact small governments because it contains no requirements that apply
to such

[[Page 15708]]

governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of
the UMRA do not apply to this rule.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. The results of the analysis for the proposed rule and the
method used by EPA to perform the analysis of impacts on small entities
are discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (64 FR 6946,
February 11, 1999).
    In response to comments on the proposed rule that EPA understated
the number of small businesses that would be affected by the rule, EPA
refined its small business impacts analysis to include information
concerning sweat furnaces, aluminum die casting facilities, and
aluminum foundries. The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final
rule. Based on the revised small business impacts analysis prepared
concerning this final rule, EPA has also determined that the
requirements in this rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The regulation will potentially impact firms producing products in
SIC codes 3341 (secondary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals),
3353 (aluminum sheet, plate, and foil), 3334 (primary aluminum
production), 3354 (aluminum extruded products), 3363 (aluminum die-
casting), 3365 (aluminum foundries), 4953 (refuse systems--materials
recovery facilities), 5093 (scrap and waste materials), and 5015 (motor
vehicle parts-used). The Small Business Administration criteria for
each affected industry are shown in Table 5.

    Table 5.--Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Affected Industries and Small
                            Business Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Standard industrial classification code     Small business  criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3341  Secondary Smelting and Refining of    Less than 500 employees.
 Nonferrous Metals.
3353  Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil.....  Less than 750 employees.
3334  Primary Aluminum Production.........  Less than 1,000 employees.
3354  Aluminum Extruded Products..........  Less than 750 employees.
3363  Aluminum Die-Casting................  Less than 500 employees.
3365  Aluminum Foundries..................  Less than 500 employees.
4953  Refuse Systems......................  Less than $6 million in
                                             annual sales revenues.
5093  Scrap and Waste Materials...........  Less than 100 employees.
5015  Motor Vehicle Parts--Used...........  Less than 100 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received responses to an information collection request
from 135 secondary aluminum facilities producing products in SIC 3334,
3341, 3353 and 3355. To define the small business entities, the 135
facilities were matched with their parent companies. It was determined
that 32 of these companies employ less than 750 employees and meet the
Small Business Administration's definition of a small business entity.
(Note the criterion of 750 employees was used for secondary aluminum
producers, because it results in a larger number of small businesses.
None of the affected firms in the data base producing principally
primary aluminum products in SIC 3334 are small businesses.)
    There are 320 aluminum die casting companies and approximately 1530
aluminum foundries currently operating domestically. The vast majority
of these firms are small businesses employing less than 500 employees.
No small businesses within aluminum die casting companies or aluminum
foundries have been specifically identified that are impacted by the
final rule under applicability as defined. Only large businesses have
come forward with information regarding applicability of the
standard(s) to their operations. Based on that information, we have
performed a small business analysis based on a probable over estimate
of the number of small businesses within these industry sectors that
may be affected by the final rule. (Docket A-92-61).
    It is estimated that around 1650 sweat furnaces are operated by
businesses in the United States that will be subject to this rule.
Firms owning sweat furnaces are primarily small businesses.
    The analysis of small business impacts for these industries focused
on a comparison of compliance costs as a percentage of sales (cost/
sales ratio). When available, the analysis used actual firm sales data.
However, actual firm data were unavailable for a number of small
businesses. To estimate the impact for such firms, an analysis
comparing model plant control cost estimates to model plant revenue
data was conducted. As Table 6 shows, cost to sales ratios based on
model plant revenue and cost data yield ratios of less than 1 percent
for all model plants other than model plant 7. The cost to sales ratio
for model plant 7 is 1.08 percent. For the affected industries, cost to
sales ratios of 3 percent or greater are considered an indicator of the
potential for significant economic impact. Based upon this criterion,
the model plant analysis indicates that small business firms are not
likely to experience significant economic impacts as a result of this
regulation.

 Table 6.--Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Cost to Sales Ratios Assuming Model
                       Plant Cost and Revenue Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Model
                                                                 plant
                                                                cost to
                         Model plant                             sales
                                                                 ratio
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................       0.70
2............................................................       0.35
3............................................................       0.82
4............................................................       0.71
5............................................................       0.13
6............................................................       0.07
7............................................................       1.08
8............................................................       0.07
Sweat Furnace 1..............................................       0.16
Sweat Furnace 2..............................................       0.06
Sweat Furnace 3..............................................       0.08
Die Casting 1................................................       0.01
Die Casting 2................................................       0.01
Die Casting 3................................................       0.04
Foundry 1....................................................       0.16
Foundry 2....................................................       0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A search for actual company revenue data for small businesses was
completed. Data were located for 26 of the 32 small secondary aluminum
firms (model plants 1-6) and aluminum dross fabricators (model plants 7
and 8) identified by the survey. Data were also collected for 53 small
die casting firms, 22 small aluminum foundries, and for 65 small
business that may potentially operate sweat furnaces. A summary of the
cost to sales ratios for the small secondary aluminum producers using
actual company sales data is shown in Table 7 below.

[[Page 15709]]

   Table 7.--Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Company Specific Cost to Sales
                  Ratios for Affected Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of small
                                                           companies in
                    Cost/sales ratio                       each cost to
                                                           sales range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Aluminum Industry:
  0.00%-0.99%..........................................               19
  1.00%-1.99%..........................................                5
  2.00%-2.99%..........................................                2
Mean cost to sales ratio=0.74%                            Total firms=26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of small
                                                            companies
                Mean cost to sales ratio                    evaluated
                                                             (firms)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum Die Casting Industry: 0.04%                                  53
Aluminum Foundry Industry: 0.04%.......................               22
Firms Owning Sweat Furnaces: 0.01%.....................               65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As depicted in Table 7, the majority of small businesses modeled
are anticipated to experience cost to sales ratios below 1 percent.
Seven small companies show cost to sales ratios above 1 percent, but
less than 3 percent. Since no company exhibits cost to sales above 3
percent and the majority of small businesses are expected to incur cost
to sales ratios less than 1 percent, significant impacts to small
entities are not expected. The results of the analyses conducted using
both model plant data and actual small business firm data indicate that
impacts from this regulation are not likely to be significant to small
business firms. As previously stated, the analysis is based on a
probable over estimate of the number of small businesses within these
industry sectors that may be affected by the final rule. The EPA
concludes that this regulation will not result in a significant
economic impact for a substantial number of small entities. For more
detailed information, please see Economic Impact Analysis for the
Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Final Report, October 1999.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule are
being submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1894.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The promulgated information requirements 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, to confirm that
emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained,
and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. 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 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 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. (See 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251,
September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
    The EPA is required under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act to
regulate emissions of HAPs listed in section 112(b). The requested
information is needed as part of the overall compliance and enforcement
program. The ICR requires that secondary aluminum production facilities
retain records of parameter and emissions monitoring data at facilities
for a period of 5 years, which is consistent with the General
Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and the permit requirements under 40 CFR
part 70. All major sources subject to this rule will be required to
obtain operating permits either through the State-approved permitting
program or, if one does not exist, in accordance with the provisions of
40 CFR part 71. Under this final rule, the approved state permitting
program has the option to defer the requirement to obtain a title V
permit for area sources affected by this rule.
    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 total 148,000 labor hours
per year at a total annual cost of $9.2 million. This estimate includes
notifications; a performance test (with repeat tests for major
sources); one-time preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan with semiannual reports of any event where the procedures in the
plan were not followed and an operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan; semiannual excess emissions reports; initial and semiannual
furnace certifications; and recordkeeping. This estimate also includes
one time preparation of emissions averaging plans and scrap sampling
plans for some respondents. Total capital costs associated with
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR is estimated
at $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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards are not used by EPA, the CAA requires the Agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not
using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to the
requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods included in
the final rule.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to identify
voluntary

[[Page 15710]]

consensus standards. However, no candidate consensus standards were
identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule. The rule requires standard EPA methods
well known to the industry and States. Approved alternative methods
also may be used. The EPA, in coordination with the industry and
States, have agreed on the use of these test methods in the rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Secondary aluminum production.

    Dated: December 15, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

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

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

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart RRR to read as follows:
Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Secondary Aluminum Production

General

Sec.
63.1500  Applicability.
63.1501  Dates.
63.1502  Incorporation by reference.
63.1503  Definitions.
63.1504  [Reserved]

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

63.1505   Emission standards for affected sources and emission nits.
63.1506   Operating requirements.
63.1507-63.1509   [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

63.1510   Monitoring requirements.
63.1511   Performance test/compliance demonstration general
requirements.
63.1512   Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements and
procedures.
63.1513   Equations for determining compliance.
63.1514   [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, And Records

63.1515   Notifications.
63.1516   Reports.
63.1517   Records.

Other

63.1518   Applicability of general provisions.
63.1519   Delegation of authority.
63.1520   [Reserved]

Table 1 to Subpart RRR--Emission Standards for New and Existing
Affected Sources

Table 2 to Subpart RRR--Summary of Operating Requirements for New and
Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units

Table 3 to Subpart RRR--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and
Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units Appendix A to Subpart
RRR--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR

General

Sec. 63.1500  Applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator
of each secondary aluminum production facility.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to the following
affected sources, located at a secondary aluminum production facility
that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in
Sec. 63.2:
    (1) Each new and existing aluminum scrap shredder;
    (2) Each new and existing thermal chip dryer;
    (3) Each new and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating
kiln;
    (4) Each new and existing group 2 furnace;
    (5) Each new and existing sweat furnace;
    (6) Each new and existing dross-only furnace;
    (7) Each new and existing rotary dross cooler; and
    (8) Each new and existing secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (c) The requirements of this subpart pertaining to dioxin and furan
(D/F) emissions and associated operating, monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements apply to the following affected sources,
located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area
source of HAPs as defined in Sec. 63.2:
    (1) Each new and existing thermal chip dryer;
    (2) Each new and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating
kiln;
    (3) Each new and existing sweat furnace;
    (4) Each new and existing secondary aluminum processing unit,
containing one or more group 1 furnace emission units processing other
than clean charge.
    (d) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to manufacturers
of aluminum die castings, aluminum foundries, or aluminum extruders
that melt no materials other than clean charge and materials generated
within the facility; and that also do not operate a thermal chip dryer,
sweat furnace or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
    (e) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to facilities and
equipment used for research and development that are not used to
produce a saleable product.
    (f) The owner or operator of a secondary aluminum production
facility subject to the provisions of this subpart, is subject to the
title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, as
applicable. The permitting authority may defer the affected facility
from the title V permitting requirements until December 9, 2004, if the
secondary aluminum production facility is not a major source and is not
located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 71.2,
and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V permit. If an
affected facility receives a deferral from title V permitting
requirements under this section, the source must submit a title V
permit application by December 9, 2005. The affected facility must
continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to
area sources, even if a deferral from title V permitting requirements
has been granted to the facility by the permitting authority.

Sec. 63.1501  Dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must
comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003.
    (b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with
the requirements of this subpart by March 23, 2000 or upon startup,
whichever is later.

Sec. 63.1502  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of
certain publications listed in the rule will be approved by the
Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of the date of
publication of the final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. This material is incorporated as it exists on the date of
approval: (1) Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR approved for Sec. 63.1506(c), and
(2)

[[Page 15711]]

``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to
Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and
CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA/625/3-89/016).
    (b) The material incorporated by reference is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC; and at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC. The material is also available for purchase from the following
addresses:
    (1) Customer Service Department, American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634, telephone number (513) 742-2020; and
    (2) The National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.

Sec. 63.1503  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as
amended (CAA), in Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed on a
process vent that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted
to the air.
    Afterburner means an air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases; also known as an incinerator or a thermal
oxidizer.
    Aluminum scrap shredder means a unit that crushes, grinds, 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.
    Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other effect to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of aluminum
scrap, typically below 1\1/4\ inches in any dimension, primarily
generated by turning, milling, boring, and machining of aluminum parts.
    Clean charge means furnace charge materials including molten
aluminum; T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; uncoated/
unpainted thermally dried aluminum chips; aluminum scrap dried at 343
deg.C (650  deg.F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/decoated at
482  deg.C (900  deg.F) or higher; other oil- and lubricant-free
unpainted/uncoated gates and risers; oil-and lubricant-free unpainted/
uncoated aluminum scrap, shapes, or products (e.g., pistons) that have
not undergone any process (e.g., machining, coating, painting, etc.)
that would cause contamination of the aluminum (with oils, lubricants,
coatings, or paints); and internal runaround.
    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.
    D/F means dioxins and furans.
    Dioxins and furans means tetra-, penta-, hexa-, and octachlorinated
dibenzo dioxins and furans.
    Dross means the slags and skimmings from aluminum melting and
refining operations consisting of fluxing agent(s), impurities, and/or
oxidized and non-oxidized aluminum, from scrap aluminum charged into
the furnace.
    Dross-only furnace means a furnace, typically of rotary barrel
design, dedicated to the reclamation of aluminum from dross formed
during melting, holding, fluxing, or alloying operations carried out in
other process units. Dross and salt flux are the sole feedstocks to
this type of furnace.
    Emission unit means a group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer at a
secondary aluminum production facility.
    Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter
media; also known as a baghouse.
    Feed/charge means, for a furnace or other process unit that
operates in batch mode, the total weight of material (including molten
aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, etc.) and alloying agents that enter the
furnace during an operating cycle. For a furnace or other process unit
that operates continuously, feed/charge means the weight of material
(including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, etc.) and alloying
agents that enter the process unit within a specified time period
(e.g., a time period equal to the performance test period). The feed/
charge for a dross only furnace includes the total weight of dross and
solid flux.
    Fluxing means refining of molten aluminum to improve product
quality, achieve product specifications, or reduce material loss,
including the addition of solvents to remove impurities (solvent flux);
and the injection of gases such as chlorine, or chlorine mixtures, to
remove magnesium (demagging) or hydrogen bubbles (degassing). Fluxing
may be performed in the furnace or outside the furnace by an in-line
fluxer.
    Furnace hearth means the combustion zone of a furnace in which the
molten metal is contained.
    Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes aluminum that contains paint, lubricants, coatings, or other
foreign materials with or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean
charge with reactive fluxing.
    Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs
fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating
gases or agents.
    HCl means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of hydrogen
chloride that serve as a surrogate measure of the total emissions of
the HAPs hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and chlorine.
    In-line fluxer means a device exterior to a furnace, located in a
transfer line from a furnace, used to refine (flux) molten aluminum;
also known as a flux box, degassing box, or demagging box.
    Internal runaround means scrap material generated on-site by
aluminum extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/stamping,
cutting, and trimming operations that do not contain paint or solid
coatings. Aluminum chips generated by turning, boring, milling, and
similar machining operations that have not been dried at 343  deg.C
(650  deg.F) or higher, or by an equivalent non-thermal drying process,
are not considered internal runaround.
    Lime means calcium oxide or other alkaline reagent.
    Lime-injection means the continuous addition of lime upstream of a
fabric filter.
    Melting/holding furnace, or melter/holder, 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.
    Operating cycle means for a batch process, the period beginning
when the feed material is first charged to the operation and ending
when all feed material charged to the operation has been processed. For
a batch melting or holding furnace process, operating cycle means the
period including the charging and melting of scrap aluminum and the
fluxing, refining, alloying, and tapping of molten aluminum (the period
from tap-to-tap).

[[Page 15712]]

    PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of
particulate matter that serve as a measure of total particulate
emissions and as a surrogate for metal HAPs contained in the
particulates, including but not limited to, antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
and selenium.
    Pollution prevention means source reduction as defined under the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (e.g., equipment or technology
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or
redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements
in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control), and
other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants
through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy,
water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by
conservation.
    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 HAPs.
    Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an affected
source or emission unit such that the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable new affected source, and it is
technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source
to meet relevant standard(s) established in this subpart. Replacement
of the refractory in a furnace is routine maintenance and is not a
reconstruction. The repair and replacement of in-line fluxer components
(e.g., rotors/shafts, burner tubes, refractory, warped steel) is
considered to be routine maintenance and is not considered a
reconstruction. In-line fluxers are typically removed to a maintenance/
repair area and are replaced with repaired units. The replacement of an
existing in-line fluxer with a repaired unit is not considered a
reconstruction.
    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.
    Rotary dross cooler means a water-cooled rotary barrel device that
accelerates cooling of dross.
    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
group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers which are simultaneously
constructed after February 11, 1999. 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, post-consumer aluminum scrap, aluminum scrap,
aluminum ingots, aluminum foundry returns, dross from aluminum
production, or molten aluminum 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, refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or
dross cooling. A secondary aluminum production facility may be
independent or part of a primary aluminum production facility. A
facility is a secondary aluminum production facility if it includes any
of the affected sources listed in Sec. 63.1500(b) or (c). Aluminum die
casting facilities, aluminum foundries and aluminum extrusion
facilities that process no materials other than materials generated
within the facility, or clean charge purchased or otherwise obtained
from outside the facility, and that do not operate sweat furnaces,
thermal chip dryers, or scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns
are not secondary aluminum production facilities.
    Sidewell means an open well adjacent to the hearth of a furnace
with connecting arches between the hearth and the open well through
which molten aluminum is circulated between the hearth, where heat is
applied by burners, and the open well, which is used for charging scrap
and solid flux or salt to the furnace, injecting fluxing agents, and
skimming dross.
    Sweat furnace means a furnace used exclusively to reclaim aluminum
from scrap that contains substantial quantities of iron by using heat
to separate the low-melting point aluminum from the scrap while the
higher melting-point iron remains in solid form.
    TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in ``Interim Procedures
for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and
1989 Update'' (EPA-625/3-89-016), available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.
    THC means, for the purposes of this subpart, total hydrocarbon
emissions that also serve as a surrogate for the emissions of organic
HAP compounds.
    Thermal chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate
water, oil, or oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum
chips.
    Three-day, 24-hour rolling average means daily calculations of the
average 24-hour emission rate (lbs/ton of feed/charge), over the 3 most
recent consecutive 24-hour periods, for a secondary aluminum processing
unit.
    Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate means the sum of the
total weight of chlorine in the gaseous or liquid reactive flux and the
total weight of chlorine in the solid reactive chloride flux, divided
by the total weight of feed/charge, as determined by the procedure in
Sec. 63.1512(o).

Sec. 63.1504  [Reserved]

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

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 with each applicable limit in this section. Table 1
to this subpart summarizes the emission standards for each type of
source.
    (b) Aluminum scrap shredder. On and after the date the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier, the owner or operator of an aluminum scrap shredder at
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source must
not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
    (1) Emissions in excess of 0.023 grams (g) of PM per dry standard
cubic meter (dscm) (0.010 grain (gr) of PM per dry standard cubic foot
(dscf)); and
    (2) Visible emissions (VE) in excess of 10 percent opacity from any
PM add-on air pollution control device if a continuous opacity monitor
(COM) or visible emissions monitoring is chosen as the monitoring
option.

[[Page 15713]]

    (c) Thermal chip dryer. On and after the date the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier, the owner or operator of a thermal chip dryer must not
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in
excess of:
    (1) 0.40 kilogram (kg) of THC, as propane, per megagram (Mg) (0.80
lb of THC, as propane, per ton) of feed/charge from a thermal chip
dryer at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major
source; and
    (2) 2.50 micrograms (<greek-m>g) of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5  x
10<SUP>-5</SUP> gr per ton) of feed/charge from a thermal chip dryer at
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area
source.
    (d) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. On and after the
date the initial performance test is conducted or required to be
conducted, whichever date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.03 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.06 lb of THC, as propane,
per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major
source;
    (ii) 0.04 kg of PM per Mg (0.08 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major source;
    (iii) 0.25 <greek-m>g of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5  x  10<SUP>-6</SUP> gr
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering
kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is
a major or area source; and
    (iv) 0.40 kg of HCl per Mg (0.80 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any
PM add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the
monitoring option.
    (e) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln: alternative
limits. The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln may choose to comply with the emission limits in this
paragraph as an alternative to the limits in paragraph (d) of this
section if the scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln is equipped
with an afterburner having a design residence time of at least 1 second
and the afterburner is operated at a temperature of at least 750  deg.C
(1400  deg.F) at all times. On and after the date the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.10 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.20 lb of THC, as propane,
per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major
source;
    (ii) 0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major source;
    (iii) 5.0 <greek-m>g of D/F TEQ per Mg (7.0  x  10<SUP>-5</SUP> gr
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering
kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is
a major or area source; and
    (iv) 0.75 kg of HCl per Mg (1.50 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any
PM add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the
monitoring option.
    (f) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator of a sweat furnace shall
comply with the emission standard of paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (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 two seconds or greater and
an operating temperature of 1600  deg.F or greater.
    (2) On and after the date the initial performance test is conducted
or required to be conducted, or if no compliance test is required, on
and after the compliance date of this rule, whichever date is earlier,
the owner or operator of a sweat furnace at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major or area source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.80
nanogram (ng) of D/F TEQ per dscm (3.5 x 10<SUP>-10</SUP> gr per dscf)
at 11 percent oxygen (O<INF>2</INF>).
    (g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the date the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier, the owner or operator of a dross-only furnace at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source must not
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
    (1) Emissions in excess of 0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb of PM per
ton) of feed/charge.
    (2) Visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM
add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the
monitoring option.
    (h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the date the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier, the owner or operator of a rotary dross cooler at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source must not
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
    (1) Emissions in excess of 0.09 g of PM per dscm (0.04 gr per
dscf).
    (2) Visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM
add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the
monitoring option.
    (i) Group 1 furnace. The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace
must use the limits in this paragraph to determine the emission
standards for a SAPU.
    (1) 0.20 kg of PM per Mg (0.40 lb of PM per ton) of feed/charge
from a group 1 furnace, that is not a melting/holding furnace
processing only clean charge, at a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source;
    (2) 0.40 kg of PM per Mg (0.80 lb of PM per ton) of feed/charge
from a group 1 melting/holding furnace processing only clean charge at
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source;
    (3) 15 <greek-m>g of D/F TEQ per Mg (2.1  x  10<SUP>-4</SUP> gr of
D/F TEQ per ton) of feed/charge from a group 1 furnace at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major or area source. This limit
does not apply if the furnace processes only clean charge; and
    (4) 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.

[[Page 15714]]

    (5) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere visible emissions in excess
of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control device
if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
    (6) The owner or operator may determine the emission standards for
a SAPU by applying the group 1 furnace limits on the basis of the
aluminum production weight in each group 1 furnace, rather than on the
basis of feed/charge.
    (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
(j)(1) through (j)(4) of this section on the basis of the combined
emissions from the sidewell and the hearth.
    (j) In-line fluxer. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(3) of this
section for an in-line fluxer using no reactive flux material, the
owner or operator of an in-line fluxer must use the limits in this
paragraph to determine the emission standards for a SAPU.
    (1) 0.02 kg of HCl per Mg (0.04 lb of HCl per ton) of feed/charge;
    (2) 0.005 kg of PM per Mg (0.01 lb of PM per ton) of feed/charge.
    (3) The emission limits in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this
section do not apply to an in-line fluxer that uses no reactive flux
materials.
    (4) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere visible emissions in excess
of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control device
used to control emissions from the in-line fluxer, if a COM is chosen
as the monitoring option.
    (5) The owner or operator may determine the emission standards for
a SAPU by applying the in-line fluxer limits on the basis of the
aluminum production weight in each in-line fluxer, rather than on the
basis of feed/charge.
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the date of
approval of the operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan, the
owner or operator must comply with the emission limits calculated using
the equations for PM and HCl in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(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] TR23MR00.000

Where,

L<INF>tiPM</INF> = 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;
T<INF>ti</INF> = The feed/charge rate for individual emission unit I;
and
L<INF>cPM</INF> = The PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum
processing unit.

    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 in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.001

Where,
L<INF>tiHCl</INF> = 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; and
L<INF>cHCl</INF> = The HCl emission limit for the secondary aluminum
processing unit.

    Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be
included in this calculation since they are not subject to the HCl
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] TR23MR00.002

Where,
L<INF>tiD/F</INF> = The D/F emission limit for individual emission unit
i in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 furnace; and
L<INF>cD/F</INF> = The D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum
processing unit.

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

    (4) The owner or operator of a SAPU at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major source may demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits of paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this
section by demonstrating that each emission unit within the SAPU is in
compliance with the applicable emission limits of paragraphs (i) and
(j) of this section.
    (5) The owner or operator of a SAPU at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is an area source may demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits of paragraph (k)(3) of this section by
demonstrating that each emission unit within the SAPU is in compliance
with the emission limit of paragraph (i)(3) of this section.

Sec. 63.1506  Operating requirements.

    (a) Summary. (1) On and after the date on which the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier, the owner or operator must operate all new and
existing affected sources and control equipment according to the
requirements in this section.
    (2) The completion of the initial performance tests for SAPUs shall
be considered to be the date of approval of the OM&M plan by the
permitting authority.
    (3) The owner or operator of an existing sweat furnace that meets
the specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1) must operate the sweat furnace
and control equipment according to the requirements of this section on
and after the compliance date of this standard.
    (4) The owner or operator of a new sweat furnace that meets the
specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1) must operate the sweat furnace and
control equipment according to the requirements of this section by
March 23, 2000 or upon startup, whichever is later.
    (5) Operating requirements are summarized in Table 2 to this
subpart.
    (b) Labeling. The owner or operator must provide and maintain
easily

[[Page 15715]]

visible labels posted at each group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace, in-line
fluxer and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln that identifies
the applicable emission limits and means of compliance, including:
    (1) The type of affected source or emission unit (e.g., scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace, group 2
furnace, in-line fluxer).
    (2) The applicable operational standard(s) and control method(s)
(work practice or control device). This includes, but is not limited
to, the type of charge to be used for a furnace (e.g., clean scrap
only, all scrap, etc.), flux materials and addition practices, and the
applicable operating parameter ranges and requirements as incorporated
in the OM&M plan.
    (3) The afterburner operating temperature and design residence time
for a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
    (c) Capture/collection systems. For each affected source or
emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the
owner or operator must:
    (1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates
as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.1502 of
this subpart);
    (2) Vent captured emissions through a closed system, except that
dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of
controlling temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter; and
    (3) Operate each capture/collection system according to the
procedures and requirements in the OM&M plan.
    (d) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of each affected
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton)
of feed/charge must:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, install
and operate a device that measures and records or otherwise determine
the weight of feed/charge (or throughput) for each operating cycle or
time period used in the performance test; and
    (2) Operate each weight measurement system or other weight
determination procedure in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (3) The owner or operator may chose to measure and record aluminum
production weight from an affected source or emission unit rather than
feed/charge weight to an affected source or emission unit, provided
that:
    (i) The aluminum production weight, rather than feed/charge weight
is measured and recorded for all emission units within a SAPU; and
    (ii) All calculations to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits for SAPUs are based on aluminum production weight rather than
feed/charge weight.
    (e) Aluminum scrap shredder. The owner or operator of a scrap
shredder with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must operate a
bag leak detection system, or a continuous opacity monitor, or conduct
visible emissions observations.
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (3) If visible emission observations are used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any observation of visible
emissions during a daily visible emissions test and complete the
corrective action procedures in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (f) Thermal chip dryer. The owner or operator of a thermal chip
dryer with emissions controlled by an afterburner must:
    (1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the
performance test.
    (2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (3) Operate each thermal chip dryer using only unpainted aluminum
chips as the feedstock.
    (g) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. The owner or
operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with
emissions controlled by an afterburner and a lime-injected fabric
filter must:
    (1) For each afterburner,
    (i) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the
performance test.
    (ii) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (2) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the fabric
filter monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete any necessary corrective action
procedures in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective action.
    (3) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action
within 1-hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance
with the OM&M plan.
    (4) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during
the performance test, plus 14  deg.C (plus 25  deg.F).
    (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 the same level established during the performance
test.
    (h) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator of a sweat furnace with
emissions controlled by an afterburner must:

[[Page 15716]]

    (1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each
afterburner at or above:
    (i) The average temperature established during the performance
test; or
    (ii) 1600  deg.F if a performance test was not conducted, and the
afterburner meets the specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1).
    (2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (i) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator of a dross-only
furnace with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action
within 1-hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance
with the OM&M plan.
    (3) Operate each furnace using dross as the sole feedstock.
    (j) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator of a rotary dross
cooler with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance
with the OM&M plan.
    (k) In-line fluxer. The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer with
emissions controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance
with the OM&M plan.
    (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 the same level established during the performance
test.
    (4) Maintain the total reactive chlorine 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.
    (l) In-line fluxer using no reactive flux material. The owner or
operator of a new or existing in-line fluxer using no reactive flux
materials must operate each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux
materials.
    (m) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. The
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace with emissions controlled by a
lime-injected fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm.
    (ii) Complete the corrective action procedures in accordance with
the OM&M plan.
    (iii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of any 6-minute
average reading of 5 percent or more opacity; and
    (ii) Complete the corrective action procedures in accordance with
the OM&M plan.
    (3) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during
the performance test, plus 14  deg.C (plus 25  deg.F).
    (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 the same level established during the
performance test.
    (5) Maintain the total reactive chlorine 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.
    (6) Operate each sidewell furnace such that:
    (i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage
between the

[[Page 15717]]

side-well and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless the hearth
also is equipped with an add-on control device.
    (ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell unless the hearth
also is equipped with an add-on control device.
    (n) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices.
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (including a group 1 furnace
that is part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) without add-on
air pollution control devices must:
    (1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine 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.
    (2) Operate each furnace in accordance with 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.
    (3) Operate each group 1 melting/holding furnace subject to the
emission standards in Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) using only clean charge as the
feedstock.
    (o) Group 2 furnace. The owner or operator of a new or existing
group 2 furnace must:
    (1) Operate each furnace using only clean charge as the feedstock.
    (2) Operate each furnace using no reactive flux.
    (p) Corrective action. When a process parameter or add-on air
pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the value or
range established during the performance test and incorporated in the
OM&M plan, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action.
Corrective action must restore operation of the affected source or
emission unit (including the process or control device) to its normal
or usual mode of operation as expeditiously as practicable in
accordance with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. Corrective actions taken must include follow-up actions
necessary to return the process or control device parameter level(s) to
the value or range of values established during the performance test
and steps to prevent the likely recurrence of the cause of a deviation.

Sec. 63.1507-Sec. 63.1509  [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Summary. On and after the date the initial performance test is
completed or required to be completed, whichever date is earlier, the
owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or emission unit
must monitor all control equipment and processes according to the
requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements for each type of
affected source and emission unit are summarized in Table 3 to this
subpart.
    (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner
or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing
affected source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance,
and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator must submit the plan
to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval as part
of the application for a part 70 or part 71 permit. Any subsequent
changes to the plan must be submitted to the applicable permitting
authority for review and approval. Pending approval by the applicable
permitting authority of an initial or amended plan, the owner or
operator must comply with the provisions of the submitted plan. Each
plan must contain the following information:
    (1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or
ranges, as applicable, for each process and control device.
    (2) A monitoring schedule for each affected source and emission
unit.
    (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each
process unit and add-on control device used to meet the applicable
emission limits or standards in Sec. 63.1505.
    (4) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring devices or systems used to determine compliance, including:
    (i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring
device, at least once every 6 months, according to the manufacturer's
instructions; and
    (ii) Procedures for the quality control and quality assurance of
continuous emission or opacity monitoring systems as required by the
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device
parameters, including 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.
    (6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the value
or range established in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, including:
    (i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of an deviation or
excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and
    (ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time
corrective action was initiated, and the time/date corrective action
was completed.
    (7) A maintenance schedule for each process and control device that
is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations
for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (8) Documentation of the work practice and pollution prevention
measures used to achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits
and a site-specific monitoring plan as required in paragraph (o) of
this section for each group 1 furnace not equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device.
    (c) Labeling. The owner or operator must inspect the labels for
each group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace, in-line fluxer and scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at least once per calendar month to
confirm that posted labels as required by the operational standard in
Sec. 63.1506(b) are intact and legible.
    (d) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Install, operate, and maintain a capture/collection system for
each affected source and emission unit equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device; and
    (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.
    (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
<greek-m>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 applicable permitting authority to
determine the total weight of feed/charge or aluminum production to the
affected source or emission unit.
    (1) The accuracy of the weight measurement device or procedure must

[[Page 15718]]

be <plus-minus>1 percent of the weight being measured. The owner or
operator may apply to the permitting agency for approval to use a
device of alternative accuracy if the required accuracy cannot be
achieved as a result of equipment layout or charging practices. 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 standard.
    (2) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the weight
measurement device in accordance with the schedule specified by the
manufacturer, or if no calibration schedule is specified, at least once
every 6 months.
    (f) Fabric filters and lime-injected fabric filters. The owner or
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a fabric filter
or lime-injected fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this
subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a
bag leak detection system as required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section or a continuous opacity monitoring system as required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The owner or operator of an aluminum
scrap shredder must install and operate a bag leak detection system as
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, install and operate a
continuous opacity monitoring system as required in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section, or conduct visible emission observations as required in
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source or existing emission unit using a bag leak
detection system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install and operate a bag leak
detection system for each exhaust stack of a fabric filter.
    (ii) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (September 1997). This
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions, Monitoring and
Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19), Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document also is available on the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement Technical
Information (EMTIC), Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other bag leak
detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
    (iv) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute PM loadings.
    (v) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (vi) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
    (vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or
cell. For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak
detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (ix) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time.
    (x) Following initial adjustment of the system, the owner or
operator must not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period,
alarm set points, or alarm delay time except as detailed in the OM&M
plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100
percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless
such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection which
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
    (2) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source or an existing emission unit using a
continuous opacity monitoring system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system to measure and record
the opacity of emissions exiting each exhaust stack.
    (ii) Each continuous opacity monitoring system must meet the design
and installation requirements of Performance Specification 1 in
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
    (3) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing aluminum scrap shredder who conducts visible emission
observations. The owner or operator must:
    (i) Perform a visible emissions test for each aluminum scrap
shredder using a certified observer at least once a day according to
the requirements of Method 9 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Each
Method 9 test must consist of five 6-minute observations in a 30-minute
period; and
    (ii) Record the results of each test.
    (g) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the
requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the operating
temperature of the afterburner consistent with the requirements for
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
    (2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit
of the combustion zone of each afterburner.
    (ii) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute
block averages and determine and record the average temperature for
each 3-hour block period.
    (iii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times
the average temperature established according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.1512(m).
    (iv) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system
or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (3) The owner or operator must conduct an inspection of each
afterburner at least once a year and record the results. At a minimum,
an inspection must include:
    (i) Inspection of all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation and clean pilot sensor;
    (ii) Inspection for proper adjustment of combustion air;
    (iii) Inspection of internal structures (e.g., baffles) to ensure
structural integrity;
    (iv) Inspection of dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
    (v) Inspection for proper sealing;
    (vi) Inspection of motors for proper operation;
    (vii) Inspection of combustion chamber refractory lining and clean
and replace lining as necessary;
    (viii) Inspection of afterburner shell for corrosion and/or hot
spots;
    (ix) Documentation, for the burn cycle that follows the inspection,
that the

[[Page 15719]]

afterburner is operating properly and any necessary adjustments have
been made; and
    (x) Verification that the equipment is maintained in good operating
condition.
    (xi) Following an equipment inspection, all necessary repairs must
be completed in accordance with the requirements of the OM&M plan.
    (h) Fabric filter inlet temperature. These requirements apply to
the owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln
or a group 1 furnace using a lime-injected fabric filter to comply with
the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the temperature of
the fabric filter inlet gases consistent with the requirements for
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
    (2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute
block averages and calculate and record the average temperature for
each 3-hour block period.
    (ii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times
the average temperature established according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.1512(n).
    (iii) The reference method must be a National Institute of
Standards and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-
potentiometer system or alternate reference, subject to approval by the
Administrator.
    (i) Lime injection. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a lime-injected
fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator of a continuous lime injection system
must verify that lime is always free-flowing by either:
    (i) Inspecting each feed hopper or silo at least once each 8-hour
period and recording the results of each inspection. If lime is found
not to be free-flowing during any of the 8-hour periods, the owner or
operator must increase the frequency of inspections to at least once
every 4-hour period for the next 3 days. The owner or operator may
return to inspections at least once every 8 hour period if corrective
action results in no further blockages of lime during the 3-day period;
or
    (ii) Subject to the approval of the permitting agency, installing,
operating and maintaining a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator,
carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system to confirm
that lime is free-flowing. If lime is found not to be free-flowing, the
owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective
action, or
    (iii) Subject to the approval of the permitting agency, installing,
operating and maintaining a device to monitor the concentration of HCl
at the outlet of the fabric filter. If an increase in the concentration
of HCl indicates that the lime is not free-flowing, the owner or
operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective action.
    (2) The owner or operator of a continuous lime injection system
must record the lime feeder setting once each day of operation.
    (3) An owner or operator who intermittently adds lime to a lime
coated fabric filter must obtain approval from the permitting authority
for a lime addition monitoring procedure. The permitting authority 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.
    (j) Total reactive flux injection rate. These requirements apply to
the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (with or without add-on air
pollution control devices) or in-line fluxer. The owner or operator
must:
    (1) Install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a device to
continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid
reactive flux injected to each affected source or emission unit.
    (i) The monitoring system must record the weight for each 15-minute
block period, during which reactive fluxing occurs, over the same
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (ii) The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be
<plus-minus>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 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 <plus-minus>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.
    (iii) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the
weight measurement device in accordance with the schedule specified by
the manufacturer, or if no calibration schedule is specified, at least
once every 6 months.
    (2) Calculate and record the gaseous or liquid reactive flux
injection rate (kg/Mg or lb/ton) for each operating cycle or time
period used in the performance test using the procedure in
Sec. 63.1512(o).
    (3) Record, for each 15-minute block period during each operating
cycle or time period used in the performance test during which reactive
fluxing occurs, the time, weight, and type of flux for each addition
of:
    (i) Gaseous or liquid reactive flux other than chlorine; and
    (ii) Solid reactive flux.
    (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).
    (5) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer
performing reactive fluxing may apply to the Administrator for approval
of an alternative method for monitoring and recording the total
reactive flux addition rate based on monitoring the weight or quantity
of reactive flux per ton of feed/charge for each operating cycle or
time period used in the performance test. An alternative monitoring
method 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 on a continuous basis.
    (k) Thermal chip dryer. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of a thermal chip dryer with emissions controlled by an
afterburner. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Record the type of materials charged to the unit for each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the applicable
operational standard for charge materials in Sec. 63.1506(f)(3) for
each 6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(i).
    (l) Dross-only furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of a dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Record the materials charged to each unit for each operating
cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the applicable
operational standard for charge materials in Sec. 63.1506(i)(3) for
each 6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(ii).
    (m) In-line fluxers using no reactive flux. The owner or operator
of an in-line fluxer that uses no reactive flux

[[Page 15720]]

materials must submit a certification of compliance with the
operational standard for no reactive flux materials in Sec. 63.1506(l)
for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(vi).
    (n) Sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control
devices. These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a
sidewell group 1 furnace using add-on air pollution control devices.
The owner or operator must:
    (1) Record in an operating log for each charge of a sidewell
furnace that 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.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the operational
standards in Sec. 63.1506(m)(7) for each 6-month reporting period. Each
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iii).
    (o) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices.
These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace
that is not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device.
    (1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the
applicable permitting authority, a written site-specific monitoring
plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must be part of the OM&M plan
that addresses monitoring and compliance requirements for PM, HCl, and
D/F emissions.
    (i) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must
submit the site-specific monitoring plan to the applicable permitting
authority for review at least 6 months prior to the compliance date.
    (ii) The permitting authority 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 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. Subject to permitting agency approval of the
OM&M plan, 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.
    (2) Each site-specific monitoring plan must document each work
practice, equipment/design practice, pollution prevention practice, or
other measure used to meet the applicable emission standards.
    (3) Each site-specific monitoring plan must include provisions for
unit labeling as required in paragraph (c) of this section, feed/charge
weight measurement (or production weight measurement) as required in
paragraph (e) of this section and flux weight measurement as required
in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (4) Each site-specific monitoring plan for a melting/holding
furnace subject to the clean charge emission standard in
Sec. 63.1505(i)(3) must include these requirements:
    (i) The owner or operator must record the type of feed/ charge
(e.g., ingot, thermally dried chips, dried scrap, etc.) for each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test; and
    (ii) The owner or operator must submit a certification of
compliance with the applicable operational standard for clean charge
materials in Sec. 63.1506(n)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iv).
    (5) If a continuous emission monitoring system is included in a
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide
quality-assured measurements in accordance with all applicable
requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (6) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is included in a
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide
quality-assured measurements in accordance with all applicable
requirements of this subpart.
    (7) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a scrap inspection
program for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace feed/
charge materials, the plan must include provisions for the
demonstration and implementation of the program in accordance with all
applicable requirements in paragraph (p) of this section.
    (8) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a calculation
method for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace feed/
charge materials, the plan must include provisions for the
demonstration and implementation of the program in accordance with all
applicable requirements in paragraph (q) of this section.
    (p) Scrap inspection program for group 1 furnace without add-on air
pollution control devices. A scrap inspection program must include:
    (1) A proven method for collecting representative samples and
measuring the oil and coatings content of scrap samples;
    (2) A scrap inspector training program;
    (3) An established correlation between visual inspection and
physical measurement of oil and coatings content of scrap samples;
    (4) Periodic physical measurements of oil and coatings content of
randomly-selected scrap samples and comparison with visual inspection
results;
    (5) A system for assuring that only acceptable scrap is charged to
an affected group 1 furnace; and
    (6) Recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with plan
requirements.
    (q) Monitoring of scrap contamination level by calculation method
for group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. The
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace dedicated to processing a
distinct type of furnace feed/charge composed of scrap with a uniform
composition (such as rejected product from a manufacturing process for
which the coating-to-scrap ratio can be documented) may include a
program in the site-specific monitoring plan for determining,
monitoring, and certifying the scrap contaminant level using a
calculation method rather than a scrap inspection program. A scrap
contaminant monitoring program using a calculation method must include:
    (1) Procedures for the characterization and documentation of the
contaminant level of the scrap prior to the performance test.
    (2) Limitations on the furnace feed/charge to scrap of the same
composition as that used in the performance test. If the performance
test was conducted with a mixture of scrap and clean charge,
limitations on the proportion of scrap in the furnace feed/charge to no
greater than the proportion used during the performance test.
    (3) Operating, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure that no scrap with a contaminant level higher
than that used in the performance test is charged to the furnace.
    (r) Group 2 furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of a new or existing group 2 furnace. The owner or operator
must:
    (1) Record a description of the materials charged to each furnace,

[[Page 15721]]

including any nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating
fluxing materials or agents.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the applicable
operational standard for charge materials in Sec. 63.1506(o) for each
6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(v).
    (s) Site-specific requirements for secondary aluminum processing
units. (1) An owner or operator of a secondary aluminum processing unit
at a facility must include, within the OM&M plan prepared in accordance
with Sec. 63.1510(b), the following information:
    (i) The identification of each emission unit in the secondary
aluminum processing unit;
    (ii) The specific control technology or pollution prevention
measure to be used for each emission unit in the secondary aluminum
processing unit and the date of its installation or application;
    (iii) The emission limit calculated for each secondary aluminum
processing unit and performance test results with supporting
calculations demonstrating initial compliance with each applicable
emission limit;
    (iv) Information and data demonstrating compliance for each
emission unit with all applicable design, equipment, work practice or
operational standards of this subpart; and
    (v) The monitoring requirements applicable to each emission unit in
a secondary aluminum processing unit and the monitoring procedures for
daily calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average using the
procedure in Sec. 63.1510(t).
    (2) The SAPU compliance procedures within the OM&M plan may not
contain any of the following provisions:
    (i) Any averaging among emissions of differing pollutants;
    (ii) The inclusion of any affected sources other than emission
units in a secondary aluminum processing unit;
    (iii) The inclusion of any emission unit while it is shutdown; or
    (iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction 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 applicable permitting authority containing the
information required by paragraph (s)(1) of this section and obtain
approval of the applicable permitting authority 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, HCl, and D/F
for each secondary aluminum processing unit on a daily basis. To
calculate the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average, the owner or operator
must:
    (1) Calculate and record the total weight of material charged to
each emission unit in the secondary aluminum processing unit for each
24-hour day of operation using the feed/charge weight information
required in paragraph (e) of this section. If the owner or operator
chooses to comply on the basis of weight of aluminum produced by the
emission unit, rather than weight of material charged to the emission
unit, all performance test emissions results and all calculations must
be conducted on the aluminum production weight basis.
    (2) Multiply the total feed/charge weight to the emission unit, or
the weight of aluminum produced by the emission unit, for each emission
unit for the 24-hour period by the emission rate (in lb/ton of feed/
charge) for that emission unit (as determined during the performance
test) to provide emissions for each emission unit for the 24-hour
period, in pounds.
    (3) Divide the total emissions for each SAPU for the 24-hour period
by the total material charged to the SAPU, or the weight of aluminum
produced by the SAPU over the 24-hour period to provide the daily
emission rate for the SAPU.
    (4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using Equation 4:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.003


Where,

E<INF>day</INF> = The daily PM, HCl, or D/F emission rate for the
secondary aluminum processing unit for the 24-hour period;
T<INF>i</INF> = The total amount of feed, or aluminum produced, for
emission unit i for the 24-hour period (tons);
ER<INF>i</INF> = The measured emission rate for emission unit i as
determined in the performance test (lb/ton or <greek-m>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.
    (u) Secondary aluminum processing unit compliance by individual
emission unit demonstration. As an alternative to the procedures of
paragraph (t) of this section, an owner or operator may demonstrate,
through performance tests, that each individual emission unit within
the secondary aluminum production unit is in compliance with the
applicable emission limits for the emission unit.
    (v) Alternative monitoring method for lime addition. The owner or
operator of a lime-coated fabric filter that employs intermittent or
noncontinuous lime addition may apply to the Administrator for approval
of an alternative method for monitoring the lime addition schedule and
rate based on monitoring the weight of lime added per ton of feed/
charge for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance
test. An alternative monitoring method 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 on a
continuous basis.
    (w) Alternative monitoring methods. An owner or operator may submit
an application to the Administrator for approval of alternate
monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(w)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section.
    (2) The owner or operator must continue to use the original
monitoring requirement until necessary data are submitted and approval
is received to use another monitoring procedure.
    (3) The owner or operator shall submit the application for approval
of alternate monitoring methods no later than the notification of the
performance test. The application must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (w)(3) (i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the
required approach;
    (ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirements, including the operating parameters to be monitored, the
monitoring approach and technique, and how the limit is to be
calculated; and
    (iii) Data and information documenting that the alternative
monitoring requirement(s) would provide equivalent or better assurance
of compliance with the relevant emission standard(s).

[[Page 15722]]

    (4) The Administrator will not approve an alternate monitoring
application unless it would provide equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission standard(s). Before disapproving
any alternate monitoring application, the Administrator will provide:
    (i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based; and
    (ii) Notice of opportunity for the owner or operator to present
additional supporting information before final action is taken on the
application. This notice will specify how much additional time is
allowed for the owner or operator to provide additional supporting
information.
    (5) The owner or operator is responsible for submitting any
supporting information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator
to consider the application prior to the performance test. Neither
submittal of an application nor the Administrator's failure to approve
or disapprove the application relieves the owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply with any provisions of this subpart.
    (6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case
basis, that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.

Sec. 63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general
requirements.

    (a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting a performance test
required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare and submit
a site-specific test plan meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.7(c).
    (b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as
described in Sec. 63.1515(b). The owner or operator must conduct each
performance test according to the requirements of the general
provisions in subpart A of this part and this subpart. 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 owner or operator must conduct each test while the affected
source or emission unit is operating at the highest production level
with charge materials representative of the range of materials
processed by the unit and, if applicable, at the highest reactive
fluxing rate.
    (2) Each performance test for a continuous process must consist of
3 separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted for
the time period specified in the applicable method or, in the absence
of a specific time period in the test method, for a minimum of 3 hours.
    (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.
    (4) Where multiple affected sources or emission units are exhausted
through a common stack, pollutant sampling for each run must be
conducted over a period of time during which all affected sources or
emission units complete at least 1 entire process operating cycle or
for 24 hours, whichever is shorter.
    (5) Initial compliance with an applicable emission limit or
standard is demonstrated if the average of three runs conducted during
the performance test is less than or equal to the applicable emission
limit or standard.
    (c) Test methods. The owner or operator must use the following
methods in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to determine compliance with
the applicable emission limits or standards:
    (1) Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses.
    (2) Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 3 for gas analysis.
    (4) Method 4 for moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) Method 5 for the concentration of PM.
    (6) Method 9 for visible emission observations.
    (7) Method 23 for the concentration of D/F.
    (8) Method 25A for the concentration of THC, as propane.
    (9) Method 26A for the concentration of HCl. 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 an
alternative test method, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (e) Repeat tests. The owner or operator of new or existing affected
sources and emission units located at secondary aluminum production
facilities that are major sources must conduct a performance test every
5 years following the initial performance test.
    (f) Testing of representative emission units. With the approval of
the permitting authority, a single representative or similar group 1
furnace or in-line fluxer which is not controlled by an add-on control
device may be tested to determine the emission rate of all like
affected sources at a facility provided that:
    (1) The tested emission unit must use identical feed/charge and
flux materials in the same proportions as the emission units that it
represents;
    (2) The tested emission unit is subject to the same work practices
and the emission units that it represents;
    (3) The tested emission unit is of the same design as the emission
units that it represents;
    (4) The tested emission unit is tested under the highest load or
capacity reasonably expected to occur for any of the emission units
that it represents;
    (5) At least one of each different style of emission unit at the
facility is tested; and
    (6) All add-on control devices are tested.
    (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 applicable permitting authority:
    (1) The complete emission test report(s) used as the basis of the
parameter(s) is submitted.
    (2) The same test methods and procedures as required by this
subpart were used in the test.
    (3) The owner or operator certifies that no design or work practice
changes have been made to the source, process, or emission control
equipment since the time of the report.

[[Page 15723]]

    (4) All process and control equipment operating parameters required
to be monitored were monitored as required in this subpart and
documented in the test report.

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 observations 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.
    (b) Thermal chip dryer. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure THC and D/F emissions at the outlet of the
control device while the unit processes only unpainted aluminum chips.
    (c) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. The owner or
operator must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of THC, D/
F, HCl, and PM at the outlet of the control device.
    (1) If the scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln is subject
to the alternative emission limits in Sec. 63.1505(e), the average
afterburner operating temperature in each 3-hour block period must be
maintained at or above 760  deg.C (1400  deg.F) for the test.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln subject to the alternative limits in Sec. 63.1505(e)
must submit a written certification in the notification of compliance
status report containing the information required by
Sec. 63.1515(b)(7).
    (d) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. (1)
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that processes scrap other
than clean charge materials with emissions controlled by a lime-
injected fabric filter must conduct performance tests to measure
emissions of PM and D/F at the outlet of the control device and
emissions of HCl at the outlet (for the emission limit) or the inlet
and the outlet (for the percent reduction standard).
    (2) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that processes only
clean charge materials with emissions controlled by a lime-injected
fabric filter must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of PM
at the outlet of the control device and emissions of HCl at the outlet
(for the emission limit) or the inlet and the outlet (for the percent
reduction standard).
    (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 reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an
emission test for HCl.
    (4) 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 conduct the performance tests required by
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, to measure emissions from
both the sidewell and the hearth.
    (e) Group 1 furnace (including melting holding furnaces) without
add-on air pollution control devices. In the site-specific monitoring
plan required by Sec. 63.1510(o), the owner or operator of a group 1
furnace (including a melting/holding furnaces) without add-on air
pollution control devices must include data and information
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
    (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, and D/F at the furnace exhaust outlet.
    (2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner
or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure
emissions of PM and HCl at the furnace exhaust outlet. 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 reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an
emission test for HCl.
    (f) Sweat furnace. Except as provided in Sec. 63.1505(f)(1), the
owner or operator must measure emissions of D/F from each sweat furnace
at the outlet of the control device.
    (g) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure emissions of PM from each dross-only
furnace at the outlet of each control device while the unit processes
only dross.
    (h) In-line fluxer. (1) The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure emissions of HCl and PM. 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. If the in-line fluxer
uses no reactive flux materials, emission tests for PM and HCl are not
required.
    (2) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of
reactive flux addition to the in-line fluxer and assume, for the
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that
all reactive flux added to the in-line fluxer is emitted. Under these
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an
emission test for HCl.
    (i) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control
device.
    (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 and HCl and
<greek-m>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) Each group 1 furnace processing only clean charge to measure
emissions of PM and either:
    (i) Emissions of HCl (for the emission limit); or
    (ii) The mass flow rate of HCl at the inlet to and outlet from the
control device (for the percent reduction standard).
    (2) Each group 1 furnace that processes scrap other than clean
charge to measure emissions of PM and D/F and either:
    (i) Emissions of HCl (for the emission limit); or
    (ii) The mass flow rate of HCl at the inlet to and outlet from the
control device (for the percent reduction standard).
    (3) Each in-line fluxer to measure emissions of PM and HCl.
    (k) Feed/charge weight measurement. During the emission test(s)
conducted to determine compliance with emission limits in a kg/Mg (lb/
ton) format, the owner or operator of an affected source or emission
unit, subject to an emission limit in a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed/charge

[[Page 15724]]

format, must measure (or otherwise determine) and record the total
weight of feed/charge to the affected source or emission unit for each
of the three test runs and calculate and record the total weight. An
owner or operator that chooses to demonstrate compliance on the basis
of the aluminum production weight must measure the weight of aluminum
produced by the emission unit or affected source instead of the feed/
charge weight.
    (l) Continuous opacity monitoring system. The owner or operator of
an affected source or emission unit using a continuous opacity
monitoring system must conduct a performance evaluation to demonstrate
compliance with Performance Specification 1 in appendix B to 40 CFR
part 60. Following the performance evaluation, the owner or operator
must measure and record the opacity of emissions from each exhaust
stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM emission test.
    (m) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the
requirements of this subpart.
    (1) Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator
must conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring
device according to the requirements of Sec. 63.8.
    (2) The owner or operator must use these procedures to establish an
operating parameter value or range for the afterburner operating
temperature.
    (i) Continuously measure and record the operating temperature of
each afterburner every 15 minutes during the THC and D/F performance
tests;
    (ii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures
for the three test runs; and
    (iii) Determine and record the 3-hour block average temperature
measurements for the 3 test runs.
    (n) Inlet gas temperature. The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or a group 1 furnace using a lime-
injected fabric filter must use these procedures to establish an
operating parameter value or range for the inlet gas temperature.
    (1) Continuously measure and record the temperature at the inlet to
the lime-injected fabric filter every 15 minutes during the HCl and D/F
performance tests;
    (2) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures
for the 3 test runs; and
    (3) Determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded
temperature measurements for the 3 test runs.
    (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.
    (1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid
reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl 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;
    (2) Record the identity, composition, and total weight of each
addition of solid reactive flux for the 3 test runs;
    (3) Determine the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate by
adding the recorded measurement of the total weight of chlorine in the
gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected and the total weight of
chlorine in the solid reactive flux using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.013

Where,

W<INF>t</INF> = Total chlorine usage, by weight;
F<INF>1</INF> = Fraction of gaseous or liquid flux that is chlorine;
W<INF>1</INF> = Weight of reactive flux gas injected;
F<INF>2</INF> = Fraction of solid reactive chloride flux that is
chlorine (e.g., F = 0.75 for magnesium chloride; and
W<INF>2</INF> = Weight of solid reactive flux;

    (4) Divide the weight of total chlorine usage (W<INF>t</INF>) 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 is used,
the owner or operator must derive the appropriate proportion factor
subject to approval by the applicable permitting authority.
    (p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected source or
emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter system must use these
procedures during the HCl and D/F tests to establish an operating
parameter value for the feeder setting for each operating cycle or time
period used in the performance test.
    (1) For continuous lime injection systems, ensure that lime in the
feed hopper or silo is free-flowing at all times; and
    (2) Record the feeder setting for the 3 test runs. If the feed rate
setting varies during the runs, determine and record the average feed
rate from the 3 runs.
    (q) Bag leak detection system. The owner or operator of an affected
source or emission unit using a bag leak detection system must submit
the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(6) as part of the
notification of compliance status report to document conformance with
the specifications and requirements in Sec. 63.1510(f).
    (r) Labeling. The owner or operator of each scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace and
in-line fluxer must submit the information described in
Sec. 63.1515(b)(3) as part of the notification of compliance status
report to document conformance with the operational standard in
Sec. 63.1506(b).
    (s) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source or emission unit with an add-on control device
must submit the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(2) as part of
the notification of compliance status report to document conformance
with the operational standard in Sec. 63.1506(c).

Sec. 63.1513  Equations for determining compliance.

    (a) THC emission limit. Use Equation 6 to determine compliance with
an emission limit for THC:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.004

Where,

E = Emission rate of measured pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C = Measured volume fraction of pollutant, ppmv;
MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole (lb/lb-mole): THC
(as propane) = 44.11;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K<INF>1</INF> = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/lb);
K<INF>2</INF> = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m\3\ (1 ft\3\/ft\3\);
M<INF>v</INF> = Molar volume, 24.45 L/g-mole (385.3 ft\3\/lb-mole); and
P = Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

    (b) PM, HCl and D/F emission limits. Use Equation 7 to determine
compliance with an emission limit for PM, HCl, and D/F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.005

Where,

E = Emission rate of PM, HCl, or D/F, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C = Concentration of PM, HCl, or D/F, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K<INF>1</INF> = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P = Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

    (c) HCl percent reduction standard. Use Equation 8 to determine
compliance with an HCl percent reduction standard:

[[Page 15725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.006

Where,

%R = Percent reduction of the control device;
L<INF>i</INF> = Inlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton); and
L<INF>o</INF> = Outlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).

    (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'' (EPA-625/3-89-
016), incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.1502 of this subpart,
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.
    (e) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Use the procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1), (2), and (3) or the procedure in paragraph (e)(4) of
this section to determine compliance with emission limits for a
secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (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
(E<INF>cPM</INF>) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the
secondary aluminum processing unit (L<INF>cPM</INF>) calculated using
Equation 1 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.007

Where,

E<INF>cPM</INF> = The mass-weighted PM emissions for the secondary
aluminum processing unit;
E<INF>tiPM</INF> = Measured PM emissions for individual emission unit
i;
T<INF>ti</INF> = The average feed rate for individual emission unit i
during the operating cycle or performance test period; and
n=The number of emission units in the secondary aluminum processing
unit.

    (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum
processing unit (E<INF>cHCl</INF>) is less than or equal to the
emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit
(L<INF>cHCl</INF>) calculated using Equation 2 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.008

Where,

E<INF>cHCl</INF> = The mass-weighted HCl emissions for the secondary
aluminum processing unit; and
E<INF>tiHCl</INF> = Measured HCl emissions for individual emission unit
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 (L<INF>cD/F</INF>) calculated using
Equation 3 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.009

Where,

E<INF>cD/F</INF> = The mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary
aluminum processing unit; and
E<INF>tiD/F</INF> = Measured D/F emissions for individual emission unit
i.

    (4) As an alternative to using the equations in paragraphs (e)(1),
(2), and (3) of this section, the owner or operator may demonstrate
compliance for a secondary aluminum processing unit by demonstrating
that each existing group 1 furnace is in compliance with the emission
limits for a new group 1 furnace in Sec. 63.1505(i) and that each
existing in-line fluxer is in compliance with the emission limits for a
new in-line fluxer in Sec. 63.1505(j).

Sec. 63.1514  [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, And Records

Sec. 63.1515  Notifications.

    (a) Initial notifications. The owner or operator must submit
initial notifications to the applicable permitting authority as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1), the owner or operator must
provide notification for an area source that subsequently increases its
emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the
standard.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3), the owner or operator of a new
or reconstructed affected source, or a source that has been
reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an initial
startup after the effective date of this subpart and for which an
application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not
required under Sec. 63.5(d), must provide notification that the source
is subject to the standard.
    (3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4), the owner or operator of a new
or reconstructed major affected source that has an initial startup
after the effective date of this subpart and for which an application
for approval of construction or reconstruction is required by
Sec. 63.5(d) must provide the following notifications:
    (i) Intention to construct a new major affected source, reconstruct
a major source, or reconstruct a major source such that the source
becomes a major affected source;
    (ii) Date when construction or reconstruction was commenced
(submitted simultaneously with the application for approval of
construction or reconstruction if construction or reconstruction was
commenced before the effective date of this subpart, or no later than
30 days after the date construction or reconstruction commenced if
construction or reconstruction commenced after the effective date of
this subpart);
    (iii) Anticipated date of startup; and
    (iv) Actual date of startup.
    (4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5), after the effective date of
this subpart, an owner or operator who intends to construct a new
affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this
subpart, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected
source subject to this subpart, must provide notification of the
intended construction or reconstruction. The notification must include
all the information required for an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction as required by Sec. 63.5(d). For major
sources, the application for approval of construction or reconstruction
may be used to fulfill these requirements.
    (i) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable before
the construction or reconstruction is planned to commence (but no
sooner than the effective date) if the construction or reconstruction
commences after the effective date of this subpart; or
    (ii) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable
before startup but no later than 90 days after the effective date of
this subpart if the construction or reconstruction had commenced and

[[Page 15726]]

initial startup had not occurred before the effective date.
    (5) As required by Sec. 63.9(d), the owner or operator must provide
notification of any special compliance obligations for a new source.
    (6) As required by Sec. 63.9(e) and (f), the owner or operator must
provide notification of the anticipated date for conducting performance
tests and visible emission observations. The owner or operator must
notify the Administrator of the intent to conduct a performance test at
least 60 days before the performance test is scheduled; notification of
opacity or visible emission observations for a performance test must be
provided at least 30 days before the observations are scheduled to take
place.
    (7) As required by Sec. 63.9(g), the owner or operator must provide
additional notifications for sources with continuous emission
monitoring systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems.
    (b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or
operator must submit a notification of compliance status report within
60 days after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1501. The
notification must be signed by the responsible official who must
certify its accuracy. A complete notification of compliance status
report must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (10) of this section. The required information may be submitted
in an operating permit application, in an amendment to an operating
permit application, in a separate submittal, or in any combination. In
a State with an approved operating permit program where delegation of
authority under section 112(l) of the CAA has not been requested or
approved, the owner or operator must provide duplicate notification to
the applicable Regional Administrator. If an owner or operator submits
the information specified in this section at different times or in
different submittals, later submittals may refer to earlier submittals
instead of duplicating and resubmitting the information previously
submitted. A complete notification of compliance status report must
include:
    (1) All information required in Sec. 63.9(h). The owner or operator
must provide a complete performance test report for each affected
source and emission unit for which a performance test is required. A
complete performance test report includes all data, associated
measurements, and calculations (including visible emission and opacity
tests).
    (2) The approved site-specific test plan and performance evaluation
test results for each continuous monitoring system (including a
continuous emission or opacity monitoring system).
    (3) Unit labeling as described in Sec. 63.1506(b), including
process type or furnace classification and operating requirements.
    (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,
afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet temperature),
including the operating cycle or time period used in the performance
test.
    (5) Design information and analysis, with supporting documentation,
demonstrating conformance with the requirements for capture/collection
systems in Sec. 63.1506(c).
    (6) If applicable, analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.1510(f).
    (7) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design
residence time of no less than 1 second for each afterburner used to
control emissions from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln
subject to alternative emission standards in Sec. 63.1505(e).
    (8) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design
residence time of no less than 2 seconds and design operating
temperature of no less than 1600  deg.F for each afterburner used to
control emissions from a sweat furnace that is not subject to a
performance test.
    (9) Approved OM&M plan (including site-specific monitoring plan for
each group 1 furnace with no add-on air pollution control device).
    (10) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, with revisions.

Sec. 63.1516  Reports.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports. The owner or
operator must develop and implement a written plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to
comply with the standard. The owner or operator shall also keep records
of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) and record and report if an
action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not
consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). In addition to the information required in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan must include:
    (1) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction
and the time the malfunction began and ended; and
    (2) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction of
a process or control device, including procedures for recording the
actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.
    (b) Excess emissions/summary report. As required by
Sec. 63.10(e)(3), the owner or operator must submit semiannual reports
within 60 days after the end of each 6-month period. Each report must
contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10(c). 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.
    (1) A report must be submitted if any of these conditions occur
during a 6-month reporting period:
    (i) The corrective action specified in the OM&M plan for a bag leak
detection system alarm was not initiated within 1 hour.
    (ii) The corrective action specified in the OM&M plan for a
continuous opacity monitoring deviation was not initiated within 1
hour.
    (iii) The corrective action specified in the OM&M plan for visible
emissions from an aluminum scrap shredder was not initiated within 1
hour.
    (iv) An excursion of a compliant process or operating parameter
value or range (e.g., lime injection rate or screw feeder setting,
total reactive chlorine flux injection rate, afterburner operating
temperature, fabric filter inlet temperature, definition of acceptable
scrap, or other approved operating parameter).
    (v) An action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction was
not consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (vi) An affected source (including an emission unit in a secondary
aluminum processing unit) was not operated according to the
requirements of this subpart.
    (vii) A deviation from the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission
limit for a secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (2) Each report must include each of these certifications, as
applicable:
    (i) For each thermal chip dryer: ``Only unpainted aluminum chips
were used as feedstock in any thermal chip dryer during this reporting
period.''
    (ii) For each dross-only furnace: ``Only dross was used as the
charge

[[Page 15727]]

material in any dross-only furnace during this reporting period.''
    (iii) For each sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution
control devices: ``Each furnace was operated such that the level of
molten metal remained above the top of the passage between the sidewell
and hearth during reactive fluxing, and reactive flux, except for cover
flux, was added only to the sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped
with an add-on air pollution control device for PM, HCl, and D/F
emissions during this reporting period.''
    (iv) For each group 1 melting/holding furnace without add-on air
pollution control devices and using pollution prevention measures that
processes only clean charge material: ``Each group 1 furnace without
add-on air pollution control devices subject to emission limits in
Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) processed only clean charge during this reporting
period.''
    (v) For each group 2 furnace: ``Only clean charge materials were
processed in any group 2 furnace during this reporting period, and no
fluxing was performed or all fluxing performed was conducted using only
nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating fluxing gases or
agents, except for cover fluxes, during this reporting period.''
    (vi) For each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux: ``Only
nonreactive, non-HAP-containing, non-HAP-generating flux gases, agents,
or materials were used at any time during this reporting period.''
    (3) The owner or operator must submit the results of any
performance test conducted during the reporting period, including one
complete report documenting test methods and procedures, process
operation, and monitoring parameter ranges or values for each test
method used for a particular type of emission point tested.
    (c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual
certifications of compliance required by 40 CFR part 70 or 71, the
owner or operator must certify continuing compliance based upon, but
not limited to, the following conditions:
    (1) Any period of excess emissions, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, that occurred during the year were reported as
required by this subpart; and
    (2) All monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements were
met during the year.

Sec. 63.1517  Records

    (a) As required by Sec. 63.10(b), the owner or operator shall
maintain files of all information (including all reports and
notifications) required by the general provisions and this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of
records may be retained off site.
    (2) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, computer
disks, magnetic tape, or microfiche; and
    (3) The owner or operator may report required information on paper
or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
    (b) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b),
the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source (including
an emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing unit) must maintain
records of:
    (1) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions
controlled by a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter:
    (i) If a bag leak detection system is used, the number of total
operating hours for the affected source or emission unit during each 6-
month reporting period, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm,
the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief
description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action(s)
taken.
    (ii) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used, records of
opacity measurement data, including records where the average opacity
of any 6-minute period exceeds 5 percent, 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.
    (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, 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.
    (2) For each affected source with emissions controlled by an
afterburner:
    (i) Records of 15-minute block average afterburner operating
temperature, including any period when the average temperature in any
3-hour block period falls below the compliant operating parameter value
with a brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the
corrective action taken; and
    (ii) Records of annual afterburner inspections.
    (3) For each scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln and group
1 furnace, subject to D/F and HCl emission standards with emissions
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter, records of 15-minute block
average inlet temperatures for each lime-injected fabric filter,
including any period when the 3-hour block average temperature exceeds
the compliant operating parameter value +14  deg.C (+25  deg.F), with a
brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective
action taken.
    (4) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter:
    (i) Records of inspections at least once every 8-hour period
verifying that lime is present in the feeder hopper or silo and
flowing, including any inspection where blockage is found, with a brief
explanation of the cause of the blockage and the corrective action
taken, and records of inspections at least once every 4-hour period for
the subsequent 3 days. If flow monitors, pressure drop sensors or load
cells are used to verify that lime is present in the hopper and
flowing, records of all monitor or sensor output including any event
where blockage was found, with a brief explanation of the cause of the
blockage and the corrective action taken;
    (ii) If lime feeder setting is monitored, records of daily
inspections of feeder setting, including records of any deviation of
the feeder setting from the setting used in the performance test, with
a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective
action taken.
    (iii) If lime addition rate for a noncontinuous lime injection
system is monitored pursuant to the approved alternative monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510(v), records of the time and mass of each
lime addition during each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test and calculations of the average lime addition rate
(lb/ton of feed/charge).
    (5) For each group 1 furnace (with or without add-on air pollution
control devices) or in-line fluxer, records of 15-minute block average
weights of gaseous or liquid reactive flux injection, total reactive
flux injection rate and calculations (including records of the
identity, composition, and weight of each addition of gaseous, liquid
or solid reactive flux), including records of any period the rate
exceeds the compliant operating parameter value and corrective action
taken.
    (6) For each continuous monitoring system, records required by
Sec. 63.10(c).
    (7) For each affected source and emission unit subject to an
emission

[[Page 15728]]

standard in kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed/charge, records of feed/charge (or
throughput) weights for each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
    (8) Approved site-specific monitoring plan for a group 1 furnace
without add-on air pollution control devices with records documenting
conformance with the plan.
    (9) Records of all charge materials for each thermal chip dryer,
dross-only furnace, and group 1 melting/holding furnaces without air
pollution control devices processing only clean charge.
    (10) Operating logs for each group 1 sidewell furnace with add-on
air pollution control devices documenting conformance with operating
standards for maintaining the level of molten metal above the top of
the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux
injection and for adding reactive flux only to the sidewell or a
furnace hearth equipped with a control device for PM, HCl, and D/F
emissions.
    (11) Operating logs for each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux
materials documenting each flux gas, agent, or material used during
each operating cycle.
    (12) Records of all charge materials and fluxing materials or
agents for a group 2 furnace.
    (13) Records of monthly inspections for proper unit labeling for
each affected source and emission unit subject to labeling
requirements.
    (14) Records of annual inspections of emission capture/collection
and closed vent systems.
    (15) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedure.
    (16) Current copy of all required plans, including any revisions,
with records documenting conformance with the applicable plan,
including:
    (i) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
    (ii) For major sources, OM&M plan; and
    (iii) Site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emission
plan (if applicable).
    (17) For each secondary aluminum processing unit, records of total
charge weight, or if the owner or operator chooses to comply on the
basis of aluminum production, total aluminum produced for each 24-hour
period and calculations of 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions.

Other

Sec. 63.1518  Applicability of general provisions.

    The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this
part that are applicable to the owner or operator subject to the
requirements of this subpart are shown in appendix A to this subpart.

Sec. 63.1519  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(d) of the CAA, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are
not transferred to a State.
    (b) Applicability determinations pursuant to Sec. 63.1.

Sec. 63.1520  [Reserved]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 15729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.010

[[Page 15730]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.011

[[Page 15731]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.012

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 15732]]

  Table 2 to Subpart RRR.--Summary of Operating Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
                                                      Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monitor type/operation/
   Affected source/emission unit               process                        Operating requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission    Emission capture and         Design and install in accordance with
 units with an add-on air pollution   collection system.           Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of
 control device.                                                   Recommended Practice; operate in accordance
                                                                   with OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
All affected sources and emission    Charge/feed weight or        Operate a device that records the weight of
 units subject to production-based    Production weight.           each charge; Operate in accordance with OM&M
 (lb/ton of feed) emission limits <SUP>a</SUP>.                               plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
Group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace,    Labeling...................  Identification, operating parameter ranges and
 in-line fluxer and scrap dryer/                                   operating requirements posted at affected
 delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.                                 sources and emission units; control device
                                                                   temperature and residence time requirements
                                                                   posted at scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
                                                                   decoating kiln.
Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric  Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with OM&M
                                                                   plan <SUP>b</SUP>; operate such that alarm does not
                                                                   sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                     COM or.....................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   minute average opacity reading of 5% or more
                                                                   and complete in accordance with OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     VE.........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of any
                                                                   observed VE and complete in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
Thermal chip dryer with afterburner  Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
                                      temperature.                 period at or above average operating
                                                                   temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     Feed material..............  Operate using only unpainted aluminum chips.
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/       Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
 decoating kiln with afterburner      temperature.                 period at or above average operating
 and lime-injected fabric filter.                                  temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
                                                                   alarm and complete in accordance with the
                                                                   OM&M plan; <SUP>b</SUP> 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.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Maintain average 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 rate........  Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
                                                                   or silo at all times for continuous injection
                                                                   systems; maintain feeder setting at level
                                                                   established during the performance test for
                                                                   continuous injection systems.
Sweat furnace with afterburner.....  Afterburner operating        If a performance test was conducted, maintain
                                      temperature.                 average temperature for each 3-hr period at
                                                                   or above average operating temperature during
                                                                   the performance test; if a performance test
                                                                   was not conducted, and afterburner meets
                                                                   specifications of Sec.  63.1505(f)(1),
                                                                   maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
                                                                   period at or above 1600  deg.F.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
Dross-only furnace with fabric       Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with the
                                                                   OM&M plan; <SUP>b</SUP> 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.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     Feed/charge material.......  Operate using only dross as the feed material.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric      Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with the
                                                                   OM&M plan; <SUP>b</SUP> 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.<SUP>b</SUP>
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 fabric filter (including those                                    alarm and complete in accordance with the
 that are part of a secondary                                      OM&M plan; <SUP>b</SUP> operate such that alarm does not
 aluminum processing unit).                                        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.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     Lime injection rate........  Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
                                                                   or silo at all times for continuous injection
                                                                   systems; maintain feeder setting at level
                                                                   established during performance test for
                                                                   continuous injection systems.

[[Page 15733]]

                                     Reactive flux injection      Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
                                      rate.                        below rate used during the performance test
                                                                   for each operating cycle or time period used
                                                                   in the performance test.
In-line fluxer (using no reactive    Flux materials.............  Use no reactive flux.
 flux material).
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected   Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 fabric filter (including those                                    alarm; operate such that alarm does not sound
 that are part of a secondary                                      more than 5% of operating time in 6-month
 aluminum processing unit).                                        period; complete corrective action in
                                                                   accordance with the OM&M plan.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     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.<SUP>b</SUP>
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Maintain average fabric filter inlet
                                      temperature.                 temperature for each 3-hour period at or
                                                                   below average temperature during the
                                                                   performance test +14 &degC (+25  deg.F).
                                     Reactive flux injection      Maintain reactive flux injection rate (lb/hr)
                                      rate.                        at or below rate used during the performance
                                                                   test for each furnace cycle.
                                     Lime injection rate........  Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
                                                                   or silo at all times for continuous injection
                                                                   systems; maintain feeder setting at level
                                                                   established at performance test for
                                                                   continuous injection systems.
                                     Maintain molten aluminum     Operate side-well furnaces such that the level
                                      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 sidewell furnace  Add reactive flux only to the sidewell of the
                                      hearth.                      furnace unless the hearth is also controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add-on       Reactive flux injection      Maintain reactive flux injection rate (lb/hr)
 controls (including those that are   rate.                        at or below rate used during the performance
 part of a secondary aluminum                                      test for each operating cycle or time period
 processing unit).                                                 used in the performance test.
                                     Site-specific monitoring     Operate furnace within the range of charge
                                      plan <SUP>c</SUP>.                      materials, contaminant levels, and parameter
                                                                   values established in the site-specific
                                                                   monitoring plan.
                                     Feed material (melting/      Use only clean charge.
                                      holding furnace).
Clean (group 2) furnace............  Charge and flux materials..  Use only clean charge. Use no reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a</SUP> Thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers and
  group 1 furnaces including melting/holding furnaces.
<SUP>b</SUP> OM&M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
<SUP>c</SUP> Site-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces without control devices 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.

 Table 3 to Subpart RRR.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
                                                      Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monitor type/Operation/
   Affected source/Emission unit               Process                        Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission    Emission capture and         Annual inspection of all emission capture,
 units with an add-on air pollution   collection system.           collection, and transport systems to ensure
 control device.                                                   that systems continue to operate in
                                                                   accordance with ACGIH standards.
All affected sources and emission    Feed/charge weight.........  Record weight of each feed/charge, weight
 units subject to production-based                                 measurement device or other procedure
 (lb/ton of feed/charge) emission                                  accuracy of <plus-minus>1% <SUP>b</SUP>; calibrate
 limits <SUP>a</SUP>.                                                         according to manufacturers specifications, or
                                                                   at least once every 6 months.
Group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace,    Labeling...................  Check monthly to confirm that labels are
 in-line fluxer, and scrap dryer/                                  intact and legible.
 delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric  Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   <SUP>c</SUP>; record voltage output from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     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.
Thermal chip dryer with afterburner  Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(g)(1); record
                                                                   average temperature for each 15-minute block;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.

[[Page 15734]]

                                     Feed/charge material.......  Record identity of each feed/charge; certify
                                                                   feed/charge materials every 6 months.
Scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/      Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet
 decoating kiln with afterburner      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(g)(1); record
 and lime injected fabric filter.                                  temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.
                                     Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                   ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   <SUP>c</SUP>; record voltage output from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     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 rate........  For continuous injection systems, 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-hr
                                                                   inspections if corrective action results in
                                                                   no further blockage during 3-day periode;
                                                                   record feeder setting daily.
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(h)(2); record
                                                                   temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
Sweat furnace with afterburner.....  Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(g)(1); record
                                                                   temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.
Dross-only furnace with fabric       Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   <SUP>c</SUP>; record output voltage from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     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 material.......  Record identity of each feed/charge; certify
                                                                   charge materials every 6 months.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric      Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   <SUP>c</SUP>; record output voltage from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     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-injected    Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter.                                                    ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
                                                                   Guidance''<SUP>c</SUP>; record output voltage from bag
                                                                   leak detector.
                                     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 injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of <plus-
                                      rate.                        minus>1% <SUP>b</SUP>; 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 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).
                                     Lime injection rate........  For continuous 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.<SUP>d</SUP>
In-line fluxer using no reactive     Flux materials.............  Record flux materials; certify every 6 months
 flux.                                                             for no reactive flux.
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected   Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter.                                                    ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   <SUP>c</SUP>; record output voltage from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     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.
                                     Lime injection rate........  For continuous 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.<SUP>d</SUP>

[[Page 15735]]

                                     Reactive flux injection
                                      rate Weight measurement
                                      device accuracy of +1%b;
                                      calibrate every 3 months;
                                      record weight and type of
                                      reactive flux added or
                                      injected for each 15-
                                      minute block period while
                                      reactive fluxing occurs;
                                      calculate and record total
                                      reactive flux injection
                                      rate for each operating
                                      cycle or time period used
                                      in performance test; or.
                                     Alternative flux injection
                                      rate determination
                                      procedure per Sec.
                                      63.1510(j)(5)..
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(h)(2); record
                                                                   temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hour block averages.
                                     Maintain molten aluminum     Maintain aluminum level operating log; certify
                                      level in sidewell furnace.   every 6 months.
Group 1 furnace without add-on       Fluxing in sidewell furnace  Maintain flux addition operating log; certify
 controls.                            hearth.                      every 6 months.
                                     Reactive flux injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of +1% <SUP>b</SUP>;
                                      rate.                        calibrate according to manufacturers
                                                                   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.
                                     OM&M plan (approved by       Demonstration of site-specific monitoring
                                      permitting agency).          procedures to provide data and show
                                                                   correlation of emissions across the range of
                                                                   charge and flux materials and furnace
                                                                   operating parameters.
                                     Feed material (melting/
                                      holding furnace).
Record type of permissible feed/
 charge material; certify charge
 materials every 6 months..
Clean (group 2) furnace............  Charge and flux materials..  Record charge and flux materials; certify
                                                                   every 6 months for clean charge and no
                                                                   reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a</SUP> Thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers and
  group 1 furnaces or melting/holding furnaces.
<SUP>b</SUP> Permitting agency may approve measurement devices of alternative accuracy, for example in cases where flux
  rates are very low and costs of meters of specified accuracy are prohibitive; or where feed/charge weighing
  devices of specified accuracy are not practicable due to equipment layout or charging practices.
<SUP>c</SUP> Non-triboelectric bag leak detectors must be installed and operated in accordance with manufacturers'
  specifications.
<SUP>d</SUP> Permitting agency may approve other alternatives including load cells for lime hopper weight, sensors for
  carrier gas pressure, or HCl monitoring devices at fabric filter outlet.

                   Appendix A to Subpart RRR.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Citation                        Requirement            Applies to RRR             Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1)-(4)....................  General Applicability.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(a)(5)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(a)(9)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a) (10)-(14).................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(b)...........................  Initial Applicability   Yes....................  EPA retains approval
                                           Determination.                                   authority.
Sec.  63.1(c)(1)........................  Applicability After     Yes.                     .....................
                                           Standard Established.
Sec.  63.1(c)(2)........................  ......................  Yes....................  States have option to
                                                                                            exclude area sources
                                                                                            from title V permit
                                                                                            program.
Sec.  63.1(c)(3)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(c)(4)-(5)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(d)...........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(e)...........................  Applicability of        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Permit Program.
Sec.  63.2..............................  Definitions...........  Yes....................  Additional
                                                                                            definitions in Sec.
                                                                                            63.1503.
Sec.  63.3..............................  Units and               Yes....................  .....................
                                           Abbreviations.
Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(3)....................  Prohibited Activities.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.4(a)(4)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.4(a)(5)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................

[[Page 15736]]

Sec.  63.4(b)-(c).......................  Circumvention/          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Severability.
Sec.  63.5(a)...........................  Construction and        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reconstruction--Appli
                                           cability.
Sec.  63.5(b)(1)........................  Existing, New,          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reconstructed
                                           Sources--Requirements.
Sec.  63.5(b)(2)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(6)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.5(c)...........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(d)...........................  Application for         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Approval of
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(e)...........................  Approval of             Yes.                     .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(f)...........................  Approval of             Yes.                     .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction Based
                                           on State Review.
Sec.  63.6(a)...........................  Compliance with         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Standards and
                                           Maintenance--Applicab
                                           ility.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(5)....................  New and Reconstructed   Yes.                     .....................
                                           Sources--Dates.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(b)(7)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)........................  Existing Sources Dates  Yes....................  Sec.  63.1501
                                                                                            specifies dates.
Sec.  63.6(c)(2)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4)....................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(c)(5)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(d)...........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2)....................  Operation &             Yes....................  Sec.  63.1510
                                           Maintenance                                      requires plan.
                                           Requirements.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)........................  Startup, Shutdown, and  Yes.                     .....................
                                           Malfunction Plan.
Sec.  63.6(f)...........................  Compliance with         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Emission Standards.
Sec.  63.6(g)...........................  Alternative Standard..  No.....................  .....................
Sec.  63.6(h)...........................  Compliance with         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Opacity/VE Standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)(1)-(14)...................  Extension of            Yes.                     .....................
                                           Compliance.
Sec.  63.6(i)(15).......................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(i)(16).......................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(j)...........................  Exemption from          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Compliance.
Sec.  63.7(a)-(h).......................  Performance Test        Yes....................  Sec.  63.1511
                                           Requirements--Applica                            requires repeat
                                           bility and Dates.                                tests every 5 years
                                                                                            for major sources.
Sec.  63.7(b)...........................  Notification..........  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(c)...........................  Quality Assurance/Test  Yes.                     .....................
                                           Plan.
Sec.  63.7(d)...........................  Testing Facilities....  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(e)...........................  Conduct of Tests......  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(f)...........................  Alternative Test        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Method.
Sec.  63.7(g)...........................  Data Analysis.........  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(h)...........................  Waiver of Tests.......  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)........................  Monitoring              Yes.                     .....................
                                           Requirements--Applica
                                           bility.
Sec.  63.8(a)(2)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)........................  ......................  Yes....................  .....................
Sec.  63.8(b)...........................  Conduct of Monitoring.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3)....................  CMS Operation and       Yes.                     .....................
                                           Maintenance.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)-(8)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(d)...........................  Quality Control.......  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(e)...........................  CMS Performance         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Evaluation.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5)....................  Alternative Monitoring  No.....................  Sec.  63.1510(w)
                                           Method.                                          includes provisions
                                                                                            for monitoring
                                                                                            alternatives.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)........................  Alternative to RATA     Yes.                     .....................
                                           Test.
Sec.  63.8(g)(1)........................  Data Reduction........  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(g)(2)........................  ......................  No.....................  Sec.  63.1512
                                                                                            requires five 6-
                                                                                            minute averages for
                                                                                            an aluminum scrap
                                                                                            shredder.
Sec.  63.8(g)(3)-(5)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.9(a)...........................  Notification            Yes.                     .....................
                                           Requirements--Applica
                                           bility.
Sec.  63.9(b)...........................  Initial Notifications.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.9(c)...........................  Request for Compliance  Yes.                     .....................
                                           Extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)...........................  New Source              Yes.                     .....................
                                           Notification for
                                           Special Compliance
                                           Requirements.
63.9(e).................................  Notification of         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Performance Test.
Sec.  63.9(f)...........................  Notification of VE/     Yes.                     .....................
                                           Opacity Test.
Sec.  63.9(g)...........................  Additional CMS          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Notifications.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3)....................  Notification of         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Compliance Status.
Sec.  63.9(h)(4)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.9(h)(5)-(6)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.9(i)...........................  Adjustment of           Yes.                     .....................
                                           Deadlines.
Sec.  63.9(j)...........................  Change in Previous      Yes.                     .....................
                                           Information.
Sec.  63.10(a)..........................   Recordkeeping/         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reporting--Applicabil
                                           ity.
Sec.  63.10(b)..........................  General Requirements..  Yes....................  Sec.  63.1517
                                                                                            includes additional
                                                                                            requirements.

[[Page 15737]]

Sec.  63.10(c)(1).......................  Additional CMS          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Recordkeeping.
Sec.  63.10(c)(2)-(4)...................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.10(c)(5).......................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(6).......................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(7)-(8)...................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(9).......................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.10(c) (10)-(13)................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c) (14).....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(d)(1).......................  General Reporting       Yes.                     .....................
                                           Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2).......................  Performance Test        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3).......................  Opacity or VE           Yes.                     .....................
                                           Observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4) -(5)..................  Progress Reports/       Yes.                     .....................
                                           Startup, Shutdown,
                                           and Malfunction
                                           Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)-(2)...................  Additional CMS Reports  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(e)(3).......................  Excess Emissions/CMS    Yes.                     .....................
                                           Performance Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4).......................  COMS Data Reports.....  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(f)..........................  Recordkeeping/          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reporting Waiver.
Sec.  63.11(a)-(b)......................  Control Device          No.....................  Flares not
                                           Requirements.                                    applicable.
Sec.  63.12(a)-(c)......................  State Authority and     Yes.                     EPA retains authority
                                           Delegations.                                     for applicability
                                                                                            determinations.
Sec.  63.13.............................  Addresses.............  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.14.............................  Incorporation by        Yes.                     Chapters 3 and 5 of
                                           Reference.                                       ACGIH Industrial
                                                                                            Ventilation Manual
                                                                                            for capture/
                                                                                            collection systems.
Sec.  63.15.............................  Availability of         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Information/
                                           Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-4143 Filed 3-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-p