58834 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that my result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Although this rule will not result in 

such an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are not required for this 

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.

■ 2. A new temporary § 165.T07–112 is 

added to read as follows:

§ 165.T07–112 Safety Zone Cape 

Canaveral, FL. 

(a) Location. The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the Atlantic Ocean—Port Canaveral 

Channel. The safety zone includes all 

those waters shoreward of a boundary 

that originates on the beach in position 

28° 21′ 24′′ N 080° 36′ 12′′ W; and 

extends east to 28° 21′ 24′′ N 080° 30′

18′′ W; then north to 28° 24′ 48′′ N 080°

30′ 18′′ W; then west to the beach where 

the zone will terminate at position 28°

24′ 48′′ N 080° 35′ 00′′ W. Anchoring, 

mooring, or transiting within this zone 

is prohibited, unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Jacksonville, FL. 

(b) Regulations. The general 

regulations governing safety zones as 

contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. 

Vessels with a draft of 22 feet or less 

may transit within this safety zone. 

Vessels with a draft greater than 22 feet 

may not operate within this safety zone 

without prior approval from the Captain 

of the Port, Jacksonville, FL. The 

Captain of The Port may be contacted on 

a 24 hour basis by calling Lieutenant 

Patrick Eiland at (321) 784–6781. 

(c) Dates. This rule is effective from 

10 a.m. on September 10, 2004, through 

10 a.m. on December 10, 2004.

Dated: September 10, 2004. 

David. L. Lersch, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Jacksonville.

[FR Doc. 04–22141 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD01–04–117] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Queen Mary II Visit, 

Portland, ME, Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a moving and fixed security 

zone around the Queen Mary II while in 

the Portland, Maine, Captain of the Port 

zone. This security zone is necessary to 

ensure public safety and prevent 

potential sabotage or terrorist acts 

against the vessel. Persons and vessels 

will be prohibited from entering this 

security zone without the permission of 

the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine 

during the specified closure period.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58835

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 

a.m. EDT on September 27, 2004, 

through 12:01 a.m. EDT on October 10, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket, are part of docket CGD01–04–

117 and are available for inspection or 

copying at Marine Safety Office 

Portland, 27 Pearl Street, Portland, ME 

04101 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ensign J. B. Bleacher, Port Operations 

Department, Marine Safety Office 

Portland at (207) 780–3251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM. Due to the 

warnings given by national security and 

intelligence officials that there is an 

increased risk that further subversive or 

terrorist activity may be launched 

against the United States, a heightened 

level of security has been established 

around the Queen Mary II while in the 

Portland, Maine, Captain of the Port 

zone. This security zone is needed to 

protect the passenger vessel, persons 

aboard the passenger vessel, the public, 

waterways, ports and adjacent facilities 

from potential sabotage or other 

subversive acts, accidents, or other 

events of a similar nature taken upon 

the Queen Mary II while in the Portland, 

Maine, Captain of the Port zone. Under 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 

that good cause exists for making this 

rule effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. It is 

necessary and prudent to enact this 

temporary security zone in order to 

properly protect the vessel, passengers, 

crew and others in the maritime 

community from possible terrorist 

actions. Any delay in the effective date 

of this rule is impractical and contrary 

to the public interest. 

Background and Purpose 

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist 

attacks on the World Trade Center in 

New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, 

Virginia, and Flight 93, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued 

several warnings concerning the 

potential for additional terrorist attacks 

within the United States. In addition, 

the ongoing operations in the Middle 

East have made it prudent for U.S. ports 

to be on a higher state of alert because 

the Al-Qaeda organization and other 

similar organizations have declared an 

ongoing intention to conduct armed 

attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. The 

Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine, 

will notify the maritime community of 

the periods during which the security 

zone will be enforced. Broadcast 

notifications will also advise the 

maritime community of the boundaries 

of the zone.

No person or vessel may enter or 

remain in the prescribed security zone 

at any time without the permission of 

the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine. 

Each person or vessel in a security zone 

must obey any direction or order of the 

Captain of the Port or the designated 

Coast Guard on-scene representative. 

The Captain of the Port may take 

possession and control of any vessel in 

a security zone and/or remove any 

person, vessel, article or thing from a 

security zone. No person may board, 

take or place any article or thing on 

board any vessel or waterfront facility in 

a security zone without permission of 

the Captain of the Port. Any violation of 

any security zone described herein, is 

punishable by, among others, civil 

penalties (not to exceed $32,500 per 

violation, where each day of a 

continuing violation is a separate 

violation), criminal penalties 

(imprisonment for not more than 6 years 

and a fine of not more than $250,000 for 

an individual and $500,000 for an 

organization), in rem liability against 

the offending vessel, and license 

sanctions. This regulation is established 

under the authority contained in 50 

U.S.C. 191, 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225 and 

1226. 

Due to these concerns, a temporary 

security zone around the Queen Mary II 

is necessary to ensure the safety and 

protection of the passengers aboard. As 

part of the Diplomatic Security and 

Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–

399), Congress amended section 7 of the 

Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

(PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the 

Coast Guard to take actions, including 

the establishment of security zones, to 

prevent or respond to acts of terrorism 

against individuals, vessels, or public or 

commercial structures. Moreover, the 

Coast Guard has authority to establish 

security zones pursuant to the Act of 

June 15, 1917, as amended by the 

Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 

U.S.C. 191 et seq.) (the ‘‘Magnuson 

Act’’), and implementing regulations 

promulgated by the President in 

subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of Part 6 of Title 

33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule establishes a security zone 

around the Queen Mary II while the 

vessel is underway, anchored, moored, 

or in the process of mooring in the 

Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine 

zone between September 27, 2004, and 

October 10, 2004. This temporary 

security zone is necessary to ensure 

public safety and prevent potential 

sabotage or terrorist acts against the 

vessel and the surrounding area. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that a full 

regulatory evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the DHS is unnecessary. 

This rule is not significant for the 

following reasons: the impact on 

navigation will be for a minimal amount 

of time, and delays, if any, will be short 

in length as vessels will have ample 

space to navigate around the zone. 

Moreover, broadcast notifications will 

be made to the maritime community 

advising them of the boundaries of the 

zone and Coast Guard and other law 

enforcement assets will be on-scene to 

direct vessels away from the zone. 

These law enforcement assets will be 

recognizable by law enforcement 

insignia, markings, and warning lights. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000.

For reasons enumerated in the 

Regulatory Evaluation section above, the 

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: the owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

the zone during the specified closure 

period. However, this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

58836 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

substantial number of small entities due 

to the minimal time that vessels will be 

restricted from the area of the zone, and 

the vessels’ ability to navigate safely 

around the zone. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under subsection 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. If this rule would affect your 

small business, organization or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

Ensign Jarrett B. Bleacher at Marine 

Safety Office Portland, (207) 780–3251. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888-REG-FAIR (1–888–734–3427). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule would not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

would not create an environmental risk 

to health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

system practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation, since implementation of 

this action will not result in any: (1) 

Significant cumulative impacts on the 

human environment; (2) Substantial 

controversy or substantial change to 

existing environmental conditions; (3) 

Impacts on properties protected under 

the National Historic Preservation Act 

or (4) Inconsistencies with any Federal, 

State or local laws or administrative 

determinations relating to the 

environment. A final ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Checklist’’ and a final 

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

are available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 

6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 

116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–117 to read as 

follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58837

§ 165.T01–117 Security Zone; Queen Mary 

II Visit, Portland, Maine, Captain of the Port 

Zone. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: 

All navigable waters within the 

Portland, Maine, Captain of the Port 

Zone, extending from the surface to the 

sea floor, within a 300-yard radius of the 

Queen Mary II while it is underway, 

anchored, moored, or in the process of 

mooring. 

(b) Effective period. This section is 

effective from 12:01 a.m. EDT on 

September 27, 2004, through 12:01 a.m. 

EDT on October 10, 2004. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations contained in 

§ 165.33 of this part, entry into or 

movement within these zones is 

prohibited unless previously authorized 

by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

(COTP), Portland, Maine or his 

designated representative. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

COTP, or the designated on-scene Coast 

Guard patrol personnel. On-scene Coast 

Guard patrol personnel include 

commissioned, warrant and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard on board 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

and local, state and federal law 

enforcement vessels. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Portland 

Maine or his designated representative 

will notify the maritime community of 

periods during which these zones will 

be enforced. Emergency response 

vessels are authorized to move within 

the zone, but must abide by restrictions 

imposed by the COTP or his designated 

representative. 

(d) Enforcement. The COTP will 

enforce this zone and may enlist the aid 

and cooperation of any Federal, state, 

county, municipal, or private agency to 

assist in the enforcement of the 

regulation.

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

Stephen P. Garrity, 

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Portland, Maine.

[FR Doc. 04–22138 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[FRL–7812–8] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interpretative rule.

SUMMARY: This interpretative rule 

concerns the applicability of the 

NESHAP for secondary aluminum 

producers, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, 

to a specific type of facility which 

thermally delaminates aluminum foil 

from paper and plastic and then 

mechanically granulates the recovered 

metal. We decided to reconsider this 

matter after reviewing two applicability 

determinations which were issued by 

EPA regional offices for facilities of this 

type operated by the U.S. Granules 

Corporation in Plymouth, IN, and 

Henrietta, MO. We concluded that these 

applicability determinations reflected 

conflicting constructions of subpart 

RRR, and that the determinations 

should be vacated while we undertook 

a review to develop a uniform national 

construction of the rule. 

In today’s interpretative rule, we 

conclude that a delamination chamber 

of the type operated by the U.S. 

Granules facilities is a ‘‘scrap dryer/

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln’’ as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.1503. 

Accordingly, we believe that the 

facilities operated by U.S. Granules in 

Plymouth and Henrietta, and any other 

facilities which may engage in similar 

operations, are subject to the emission 

control requirements of subpart RRR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This interpretative rule 

will take effect on November 1, 2004. 

After that date, this interpretative rule 

will govern all decisions concerning the 

applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

RRR, to affected facilities by EPA and by 

State and local permitting authorities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

specific questions concerning the 

interpretation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

RRR, adopted in this notice, contact 

Scott Throwe at EPA by telephone at: 

(202) 564–7013, or by e-mail at: 

throwe.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. This interpretative rule 

concerns applicability of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart RRR, to specific facilities 

that thermally delaminate aluminum 

foil from paper and plastic and then 

mechanically granulate the recovered 

metal. This interpretative rule 

determines that these facilities are 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities as defined by subpart RRR, and 

that such facilities are therefore subject 

to regulation under that subpart. This 

interpretative rule does not govern 

determinations regarding the 

applicability of subpart RRR to other 

types of activities or operations, 

although the rationale for the 

conclusions in this interpretative rule 

may be relevant in other contexts. 

Judicial Review. This interpretative 

rule is based on a determination of 

nationwide scope and effect. Under 

section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 

review of this interpretative rule is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

November 30, 2004. Moreover, under 

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, any 

judicial review of this interpretative rule 

must be obtained pursuant to section 

307(b)(1) and this interpretation may 

not be subjected to separate judicial 

review in any civil or criminal 

proceedings for enforcement. 

I. Background for This Interpretative 

Rule 

This interpretative rule is the outcome 

of a review by EPA of the applicability 

of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum 

producers, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, 

to a specific type of facility which 

thermally delaminates aluminum foil 

from paper and plastic and then 

mechanically granulates the recovered 

metal. This review was undertaken 

following the decision of EPA to vacate 

two applicability determinations which 

were previously made by the EPA 

regional offices concerning facilities of 

this type owned and operated by the 

U.S. Granules Corporation.

One of these applicability 

determinations concerned the U.S. 

Granules facility in Plymouth, Indiana 

and was made by the EPA Region 5 Air 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Branch on August 21, 2002, in response 

to a request for such a determination by 

U.S. Granules dated August 14, 2002. 

Notice of this applicability 

determination (Control No. M020112) 

was published in the Federal Register

on February 13, 2003. 68 FR 7373. EPA 

Region 5 based its conclusions in this 

determination on a phrase in the 

definition in subpart RRR of a ‘‘scrap 

dryer/delaquering kiln/decoating kiln’’

which states that such units are used to 

remove contaminants from aluminum 

scrap ‘‘prior to melting.’’ EPA Region 5 

concluded that the delamination 

chamber at the Plymouth facility does 

not fit within this definition because all 

processing of the recovered aluminum 

at the Plymouth facility is entirely 

mechanical and the recovered 

aluminum is never melted. 

The other applicability determination 

concerned the U.S. Granules facility in 

Henrietta, Missouri, and was made by 

the EPA Region 7 Air Permitting and 

Compliance Branch on October 22, 

2002, in response to a request for such 

a determination by U.S. Granules dated