Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/09/24/02-24227/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-for-secondary-aluminum-production
Timestamp: 2018-09-24 21:04:33
Document Index: 35761831

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200912', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963']

Federal Register :: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production
67 FR 59787
59787-59793 (7 pages)
FRL-7382-4
02-24227
II. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-24227 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-24227
On June 14, 2002, the EPA promulgated amendments to the national emission standards for secondary aluminum production as a direct final rule along with a parallel proposal to be used as a basis for final action in the event we received any adverse comments. On August 13, 2002, we withdrew the direct final rule amendments because one commenter submitted adverse comments on certain amendments. This action promulgates final amendments to the national emission standards for secondary aluminum production based on the June 14, 2002 proposal which accompanied the direct final rule.
Docket A-2002-05, containing supporting information used in developing these final rule amendments, is available for public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C504-05), Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address: schaefer.john@epa.gov.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the administrative record compiled by EPA in the development of these final rule amendments. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated rules and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. Other material related to this rulemaking is available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/​ttn/​oarpg. The TTN at EPA's web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN help line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final rule amendments is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 25, 2002. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rule amendments that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rule amendments may not be challenged Start Printed Page 59788separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action are secondary aluminum production facilities (including those collocated at primary 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. Affected sources at facilities that are major sources of HAP are regulated under the final rule. In addition, emissions of dioxins and furans from affected sources at facilities that are area sources of hazardous air pollutants are also regulated. Regulated categories and entities include:
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.
State/local/tribal governments Not affected.
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 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 § 63.1500 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble to these final rule amendments.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
On March 23, 2000, we promulgated the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production (40 CFR 63, subpart RRR) at 63 FR 15710. These standards were established under the authority of section 112(d) of the CAA to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from major and area sources.
After promulgation of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production, two petitions for judicial review of the standard were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first of these petitions was filed by the American Foundrymen's Society, the North American Die Casting Association, and the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society. American Foundrymen's Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civ. No 00-1208 (D.C. Cir.). A second petition for judicial review was filed by the Aluminum Association. The Aluminum Association v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 00-1211 (D.C. Cir.). There was no significant overlap in the issues presented by the two petitions, and the cases have never been consolidated. However, we did enter into separate settlement discussions with the petitioners in each case.
The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability of subpart RRR to aluminum die casters and aluminum foundries which were first considered during the initial rulemaking. Because aluminum die casters and foundries sometimes conduct the same type of operations as other secondary aluminum producers, we originally intended to apply the standards to these facilities, but only in those instances when they conduct such operations. However, representatives of the affected facilities argued that they should not be considered to be secondary aluminum producers and should be wholly exempt from the rule. During the rulemaking, we decided to permit die casters and foundries to melt contaminated internal scrap without being considered to be secondary aluminum producers, but their representatives insisted that too many facilities would still be subject to the rule. At the time of promulgation of the standards, in response to a request by the die casters and foundries, we announced we would withdraw the standards as applied to die casters and foundries and develop separate maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for those facilities.
After the Foundrymen's case was filed, we negotiated an initial settlement agreement in that case which established a process to effectuate our commitment to develop new MACT standards. In that first settlement, EPA agreed that it would stay the current standard for those facilities, collect comprehensive data to support alternate standards, and promulgate alternate standards. We then published a proposal to stay the standards and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) concerning new standards. However, during the process of preparing for information collection, the petitioners concluded that the present rule was not as sweeping in applicability as they had feared, and the parties then agreed to explore an alternate approach to settlement based Start Printed Page 59789on clarifications of the current standards.
We subsequently reached agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners on a new settlement. Pursuant to that settlement, we agreed to propose changes in the applicability of the present standards which would permit customer returns without solid paints or coatings to be treated like internal scrap, and would permit facilities operated by the same company at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining what is internal scrap. Those revisions were addressed in a separate proposed rule (67 FR 41125, June 14, 2002).
In the Foundrymen's settlement, we also agreed to defer the compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at existing aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extruders until the compliance date for existing sources so that the related rulemaking on general applicability issues could be completed first. This element of that settlement is the only one which is implemented by this final rule.
As required by section 113(g) of the CAA, we provided notice and an opportunity for comment concerning the Foundrymen's settlement (67 FR 9972, March 5, 2002). We received three adverse comments on the settlement, although none of the comments addressed the only element in the settlement which is implemented by this final rule. After reviewing the comments, we decided to proceed with settlement. A copy of the comments and our responses to them is available in the docket for this rule.
In separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of the Aluminum Association case. That settlement required that we propose a number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards. The substantive changes have been addressed in the same separate proposed rule as the applicability changes for aluminum die casters and foundries. The Aluminum Association settlement also required that we propose to clarify and simplify the compliance dates for the standards and to defer certain early compliance obligations until after the substantive rulemaking can be completed. The compliance issues are addressed by amendments in this final rule.
Pursuant to CAA section 113(g), we also provided notice and an opportunity for public comment concerning the Aluminum Association settlement (67 FR 16374, April 5, 2002). We received one adverse comment concerning that settlement. After reviewing that comment, we decided to proceed with settlement. A copy of that comment and our response to it is available in the docket for this rule.
We originally published the amendments adopted by this final rule as a direct final rule (67 FR 41118, June 14, 2002). The intent of these amendments is to eliminate confusion and to clarify various compliance dates in the promulgated standard, to encourage early performance tests, and to permit some basic applicability questions for aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders to be resolved before the compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities. Therefore, we decided to utilize a direct final rule so that these changes could become effective as quickly as possible.
Along with the direct final rule, we published a proposed rule to serve as the basis for final action in the event that we received any adverse comment on the proposed rule. We received a letter from one commenter expressing opposition to six of the amendments in the direct final rule. We also received a letter from another commenter expressing support for all of the amendments in the direct final rule. Because of the receipt of adverse comment, we published a notice withdrawing the direct final rule at 63 FR 52616. In view of the relationship between those amendments concerning which we received adverse comment and some of the remaining amendments, and to avoid the possibility of confusion resulting from partial adoption of the amendments, we decided to withdraw all amendments contained in the direct final rule. Today's final rule amendments serve as our final administrative action concerning all of the amendments set forth in the direct final rule and parallel proposal.
We received one letter in which a commenter expressed opposition to six specific amendments set forth in the direct final rule. Our responses to these adverse comments are set forth below. We also received one other letter expressing support for all of the amendments in the direct final rule. Both letters are available in the docket.
One of the commenters opposed the proposed new 40 CFR 63.1501(c), which would defer the compliance date for affected sources which are constructed or reconstructed at an existing aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extruder, and which meet the current applicability criteria for the secondary aluminum standards, until March 24, 2003 (the compliance date for existing sources) or startup, whichever is later. The commenter stated that these sources are able to achieve compliance with MACT as originally promulgated, that any major sources excluded from the source category will still be required to achieve a MACT level of control, and that, if EPA later promulgates less stringent standards for these sources, they will be permitted to demonstrate compliance with those standards.
We believe that the commenter misconstrued the very narrow purpose of this provision. We proposed in a separate rulemaking at 63 FR 41118 to make some modest adjustments in the applicability criteria for aluminum die casting facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extruders. Those proposed applicability changes would permit customer returns without any solid paints or coatings to be treated like internal scrap and would permit facilities operated by the same company at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining what is internal scrap in determining which facilities are subject to the standards. The only purpose of the amendment in 40 CFR 63.1501(c) is to defer the compliance date for affected sources which are constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities until after the scope of the applicability criteria has been clearly resolved. We do not think it is reasonable to require sources which may no longer be covered by the applicability criteria after we complete action on the other rule proposed at 63 FR 41125 to undertake compliance activities during this brief interim period. If the newly constructed or reconstructed sources remain within the applicability criteria after the separate rulemaking has been concluded, such sources will be subject to the same substantive control requirements.
The same commenter also expressed opposition to the proposed amendments to § 63.1505(c), (d), (e), (f), and (k) that would change the compliance date for certain existing sources to a single certain date, rather than requiring compliance to begin immediately after a successful performance test. The commenter opposed the changes because they would permit facilities to shut down control devices even though they have demonstrated the capacity to meet the standards.
While we understand the concern that reductions in HAP emissions may be deferred by affected facilities, the commenter has not addressed the reasons why we decided it is necessary to make these changes. The change to a single definite compliance date for Start Printed Page 59790certain existing sources is an integral part of a larger set of changes which are intended to resolve confusion and facilitate rational planning for compliance at the affected facilities. In particular, the existing rule is confusing because a facility could be unable to finalize its required operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan until after completing, and then evaluating the results, of an initial performance test. The existing rule could also discourage facilities from conducting early performance tests, even though such early tests could facilitate identification and correction of problems before the compliance date.
We did not receive adverse comment on any of the other amendments previously set forth in the direct final rule. However, we decided to withdraw all of the amendments, in view of the relationship between the amendments concerning which we received adverse comment and some of the remaining amendments, and the potential for confusion which would be associated with partial promulgation. In today's action, we have decided to adopt all of the amendments as proposed. We hereby incorporate by reference the explanation we previously provided for those amendments on which no adverse comment was received.
These final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be subject to the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these final rule amendments.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” These final rule amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule amendments.
These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045, because they are not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the rule and amendments are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a 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 Start Printed Page 59791governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these final rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the amendments significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to these final rule amendments.
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule amendments on small entities, small entities are defined as: (1) A small business that has fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the intent of these amendments is to eliminate confusion and to clarify various compliance dates in the promulgated standard, to encourage early performance tests, and to permit some basic applicability questions for aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders to be resolved before the compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at existing facilities.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Today's action consists primarily of clarifications to the final rule that impose no new information collection requirements on industry or EPA. Therefore, the existing ICR has not been revised. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0433 (EPA ICR no. 1894.02). A copy of the ICR document may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/​icr.
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pubic Law No. 104-113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. These final rule amendments are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These amendments will be effective on November 25, 2002.
2. Section 63.1501 is revised to read as follows:
§ 63.1501
(a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply Start Printed Page 59792with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, 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 24, 2000 or upon startup, whichever is later.
(c) The owner or operator of any affected source which is constructed or reconstructed at any existing aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which otherwise meets the applicability criteria set forth in § 63.1500 must comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003 or upon startup, whichever is later.
3. Section 63.1505 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e);
b. Revising paragraph (f)(2); and
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (g), (h), and (k).
§ 63.1505
(b) Aluminum scrap shredder. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, 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:
(c) Thermal chip dryer. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, the owner or operator of a thermal chip dryer must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in excess of:
(d) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501:
(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 (e) 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 °C (1400 °F) at all times. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501:
(f) Sweat furnace. * * *
(2) On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, 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 10−10 gr per dscf) at 11 percent oxygen (O2).
(g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, 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:
(h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, 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:
(k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, the owner or operator must comply with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM and HCl in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with the emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph (k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
4. Section 63.1506 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 63.1506
(a) Summary. (1) On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, the owner or operator must operate all new and existing affected sources and control equipment according to the requirements in this section.
5. Section 63.1510 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 63.1510
(a) Summary. On and after the compliance date established by § 63.1501, 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 of an existing affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority no later than the compliance date established by § 63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority within 90 days after a successful initial performance test under § 63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date established by § 63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is required. Each plan must contain the following information:
6. Section 63.1511 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 63.1511
(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance test required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare a site-specific test plan which satisfies all of the requirements, and must obtain approval of the plan pursuant to the procedures, set forth in § 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 § 63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any existing affected source for which an initial performance test is required to demonstrate compliance must conduct this initial performance test no later than the date for compliance established by § 63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source for which an initial performance test is required must conduct this initial performance test within 90 days after the date for compliance established by § 63.1501(b). Except for the date by which the performance test must be conducted, the owner or operator must conduct each performance test in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth Start Printed Page 59793in § 63.7(c). Owners or operators of affected sources located at facilities which are area sources are subject only to those performance testing requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners or operators of sweat furnaces meeting the specifications of § 63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a performance test.
7. Section 63.1515 is amended by removing the first sentence in the introductory text of paragraph (b) and adding, in its place, two new sentences to read as follows:
§ 63.1515
(b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or operator of an existing affected source must submit a notification of compliance status report within 60 days after the compliance date established by § 63.1501(a). Each owner or operator of a new affected source must submit a notification of compliance status report within 90 days after conducting the initial performance test required by § 63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date established by § 63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is required. * * *
8. Appendix A to subpart RRR is amended by revising the entries for § 63.7(a)-(h) and § 63.9(h)(1)-(3) to read as follows:
§ 63.7(a)-(h) Performance Test Requirements-Applicability and Dates Yes Except § 63.1511 establishes dates for initial performance tests.
§ 63.9(h)(1)-(3) Notification of Compliance Status Yes Except § 63.1515 establishes dates for notification of compliance status reports.
[FR Doc. 02-24227 Filed 9-23-02; 8:45 am]