[Federal Register: March 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 51)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12645-12652]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr03-30]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031; FRL-7465-7]
RIN 2060-AE76
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 7, 1997, the EPA issued national emission standards
for primary aluminum reduction plants under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA). This proposal would amend the existing rule by revising
the emission limits for polycyclic organic matter applicable to one
potline subcategory. The proposed amendments would also revise the
compliance provisions by clarifying the dates by which all plants must
meet the rule requirements and adding provisions specifying the time
allowed to demonstrate initial compliance for a new or reconstructed
potline, anode bake furnace, or pitch storage tank as well as an
existing potline or anode bake furnace that has been shutdown and
subsequently restarted. We are proposing these amendments to reduce
compliance uncertainties and improve understanding of the final rule
requirements.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before May 16, 2003.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by April 7, 2003, a public hearing will be held on April
14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments must be submitted by mail (in duplicate,
if possible) to: Primary Aluminum NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), U.S. EPA West, Mailcode 6102T, Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0031. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by hand delivery,
or courier. See Supplementary Information for further information on
how to submit comments. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC.
[[Page 12646]]
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC at 10
a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present
oral testimony should notify Dorothy Apple, Policy, Planning and
Standards Group (MD-C439-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone (919) 541-4487 at least 2 days in advance of the
hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Fruh, Policy, Planning, and
Standards Group (MD-C439-04), Emission Standards Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2837, electronic mail address,
fruh.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................ 331312 Establishments
primarily engaged in
producing primary
aluminum by
electrolytically
reducing alumina.
Federal government.................. ......... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government....... ......... Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.840 of the
national emission standards for primary aluminum reduction plants. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of these amendments
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031. The official public docket is
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the
Primary Aluminum NESHAP Docket at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket),
EPA West, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
reading room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system,
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility previously
identified in this document.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk
or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on
the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not
edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided
in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that
is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's
electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select
``search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031. The system is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to air-and-r-
docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail
[[Page 12647]]
address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-
mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket.
You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Primary
Aluminum NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA West,
Mailcode 6102T, Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0031.
By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments (in duplicate,
if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0031. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket
Center's normal hours of operation as identified in this document.
By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention
Primary Aluminum NESHAP Docket, Docket ID OAR-2002-0031.
CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mailcode C404-02, U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0031. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by
marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
page for newly proposed rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of Proposed Amendments
A. What is the proposed POM emission limitation for VSS2
potlines?
B. What are the proposed changes to the compliance provisions?
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. Why are we proposing to revise the POM emission limitation
for VSS2 potlines?
B. Why are we proposing to revise the compliance provisions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. Background
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a technology-based program to
reduce stationary source emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
from major sources. Major sources of HAP are those that have the
potential to emit greater than 10 tons/year of any one HAP or 25 tons/
year of any combination of HAP. The CAA requires the national emission
standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions
that is achievable. This level of control is commonly known as the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
On October 7, 1997, the EPA published final standards (62 FR 52384)
for the control of HAP from primary aluminum reduction plants (40 CFR
part 63, subpart LL). The rule contains emission limitations and
standards applicable to total fluorides (TF), which is a surrogate for
hydrogen fluoride, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). These limits
apply to each new or existing potline, paste production plant, and
anode bake furnace; they also apply to each new pitch storage tank
associated with primary aluminum production and located at a major
source.
After promulgation, two significant compliance-related issues were
identified by the industry. The concerns at issue are:
[sbull] Review of the POM emission limit for the vertical stud
Soderberg-2 (VSS2) subcategory of existing potlines, based on the
availability of additional data; and
[sbull] The date by which the owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to demonstrate initial compliance for an existing
potline or anode bake furnace that has been shut down and subsequently
restarted.
We received a petition from the industry requesting a proposed
rulemaking to revise the POM emission limits for VSS2 potlines. As part
of the request, the petition included additional test data (collected
from 1999 through 2000) for all VSS2 potlines. We agreed to analyze the
additional data and evaluate the achievability of the existing MACT
limit for POM.
II. Summary of Proposed Amendments
A. What Is the Proposed POM Emission Limitation for VSS2 Potlines?
The VSS2 subcategory includes all existing vertical stud Soderberg
potlines. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) in Sec. 63.843 of the existing rule
limits POM emissions from each existing VSS2 potline to 1.8 kilograms
(kg) per Megagram (Mg) or 3.6 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of aluminum
produced for each potline. The proposed amendments would change the POM
limit to 2.85 kg/Mg (5.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced. Table 2 of
subpart LL gives the POM emission limits for potlines at those plants
that comply by emissions averaging. The proposed POM emission averaging
limits for VSS2 potlines are:
Quarterly POM Limit (lb/ton)
[For a given number of potlines]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.0 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12648]]
A justification for the proposed revised limits is discussed further in
section III.A of this document.
B. What Are the Proposed Changes to the Compliance Provisions?
Section 63.847(a) of the rule currently requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate initial compliance by specified dates. The
proposed amendments would clarify the introductory text of paragraph
(a) by replacing the phrase ``demonstrate initial compliance'' with the
word ``comply.'' This proposed change distinguishes the compliance date
of the rule from the date by which a plant must actually conduct their
initial performance test.
Section 63.847(c) of the rule currently requires the owner or
operator to conduct an initial performance test during the first month
following the applicable compliance date. For a new or reconstructed
affected source, we are proposing that the owner or operator conduct
the initial performance test by:
[sbull] The 180th day after startup for a potline (or potroom
group). The 180-day period would start when the first pot in a potline
(or potroom group) is energized.
[sbull] The 45th day after startup for an anode bake furnace. The
45-day period would start at the beginning of the first anode bake
cycle.
[sbull] The 30th day after startup for a pitch storage tank (if the
owner or operator elects to conduct an initial performance test rather
than a design evaluation). Today's proposed amendments would not change
the timing of the initial performance test for existing affected
sources (i.e., the initial performance test must still be conducted
during the first month after the compliance date).
We are also proposing to add performance test dates following
startup of an existing potline or anode bake furnace that was shut down
at the time compliance would have otherwise been required and
subsequently restarted. Again, we are proposing 180 days after startup
for a potline (or potroom group) and 45 days for an anode bake furnace.
In addition, we are proposing to amend the notification requirements in
Sec. 63.850(a) of the rule to require advance notice to the
Administrator at least 30 days before restart of an affected source
that has been shut down.
Appendix A to subpart LL shows the requirements in the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) that do not apply to primary
aluminum reduction plants. We are also proposing to amend appendix A to
reflect the changes in performance test dates and the new notification
requirement. A detailed explanation for the proposed changes to the
compliance provisions follows in section III.B of this document.
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the POM Emission Limitation for VSS2
Potlines?
We received a petition to revise the POM limit for VSS2 potlines,
which the petitioner said was not achievable. The petitioner believes
that the limited data used to develop the original emission limit did
not reflect the normal variability of VSS2 potlines. The petitioner
submitted additional test data and requested that we reevaluate the
achievability of the original emission limit. We agreed to consider the
petition and to analyze the additional data.
When we promulgated the current rule, we based the POM limit for
VSS2 potlines on data that consisted of seven performance tests from
two potlines. We used data for only two of the potlines in this
subcategory because that was the only data available for calculating
the MACT floor and determining the MACT level of control. At that time,
we assumed that these tests for two potlines represented the
performance level achievable by the best performing VSS2 potlines. This
assumption was based on the fact that VSS2 potlines are all of the same
design, operate in the same manner, use the same feed materials, and
employ the same equipment and work practices to control emissions. We
had no reason to believe that the original POM limit associated with
MACT could not be achieved by the affected sources in the subcategory.
We have subsequently obtained data for the five best-performing
potlines in the subcategory from additional testing performed during
1999 and 2000. The database consists of information from 88 runs, which
is equivalent to 29 performance tests, because one test is the average
of three runs. The new data cover all months of the year, which means
that seasonal variations that may affect emission control performance
(such as changes in ventilation rates) are included. The original data
covered a period of only 4 months, which does not include seasonal
variations and does not capture the true variability over time. The
expanded database is far superior to the original database and more
representative of the VSS2 subcategory.
The expanded database indicates that the two potlines we used to
develop the original emission limit are actually the two best-
performing potlines in the subcategory. Moreover, the data indicate
that the MACT limit in the current rule is not achievable even by these
two potlines on a continuing basis. We have revised the MACT floor
based on the expanded database which is now available. The revised MACT
floor level of control is 5.7 lb/ton of aluminum instead of 3.6 lb/ton.
We derived this new MACT floor level of control from the currently
available data using the same statistical methodology which we employed
in the original rulemaking.
Since the data we originally utilized to establish an emission
standard for this subcategory indicate that lower emissions have been
attained in some circumstances, we also evaluated the new data to
determine whether a level of control beyond the revised MACT floor
would be achievable by the sources in this subcategory. We examined the
factors affecting the operation of the potlines and the techniques used
to control emissions. The VSS2 potlines are all designed and operated
in the same manner and use the same raw materials. The same emission
controls and work practices are also applied to each of the potlines.
We have not identified any obvious reasons for the variability in
performance other than the normal variability associated with
processes, testing procedures, and temporal variations. In fact, the
performance of the various potlines from test to test overlaps, and
although there are small differences in average performance, the
overall distributions of performance for the VSS2 potlines are similar.
We have identified no changes in processes, work practices, or
control strategies that could be implemented to improve the performance
of an individual potline. Consequently, we believe it is not
practicable for sources in the VSS2 subcategory to achieve levels of
control beyond the MACT floor on a consistent basis. Therefore, we are
proposing to revise the emission limit to 5.7 lb/ton, to represent the
MACT level of control for VSS2 potlines.
The petitioner had requested that we revise the emission limit to
7.2 lb/ton; however, our analysis indicates that the revised emission
limit should be 5.7 lb/ton. We discussed with the petitioner what test
data should be used to assess emission control performance and what
procedures should be used to analyze the data. Our goal was to be
consistent with the approach used for the original limit and also for
limits developed for other subcategories of potlines. Based on these
discussions, we believe that the petitioner understands and accepts our
rationale for the new emission limit we are proposing. Although this
numerical emission limit differs from the limit
[[Page 12649]]
proposed by the petitioner, we construe the issuance of this proposal
as a decision to grant the petition.
B. Why Are We Proposing To Amend the Compliance Provisions?
Section 63.847 of the existing rule establishes compliance
provisions for affected sources. Section 63.847(a) gives compliance
dates but requires the owner or operator to demonstrate initial
compliance by the specified dates. Upon review, we believe the phrase
``demonstrate initial performance'' could cause misunderstanding of the
rule requirements. For example, regulatory authorities could interpret
this provision to require a new or reconstructed affected source to
demonstrate initial compliance (i.e., conduct the performance test) at
startup. For this reason, we are proposing to revise the introductory
text in paragraph (a) to clearly state that ``the owner or operator of
a primary aluminum plant must comply with the requirements of this
subpart by'' the specified dates in the rule. This clarification would
not change any of the compliance dates in the existing rule.
Section 63.847(c) of the existing rule requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance
test for a potline or anode bake furnace ``during the first month
following the compliance date.'' The rule does not address the
questions of either when initial compliance must be demonstrated for a
new or reconstructed affected source or for an existing affected source
that is shut down and subsequently restarted.
Since promulgation of the rule, nearly all primary aluminum plants
in northwestern States shut down their potlines as a result of the
short supply and high cost of electric power in that region. Some
plants may curtail operations through 2003. As the electrical power
crisis has eased, primary aluminum plants have begun returning these
potlines and anode bake furnaces to active service. In some cases,
regulatory authorities have interpreted the rule to require that plants
conduct the performance test for these potlines and anode bake furnaces
within the first month after startup. While 30 days is sufficient time
to conduct a performance test for an existing potline or anode bake
furnace which is currently in operation, we believe that 30 days is not
sufficient time for startup conditions. A 30-day period would require
plants to demonstrate compliance before the startup of a potline could
feasibly be completed and to conduct testing under conditions that are
not representative of normal operation.
Aluminum potlines are unique emission sources in the sense that the
affected source consists of numerous (100 to 150 or more) smelting
cells. At the beginning of startup, a small number of cells are charged
with raw materials. When they become functional, they provide a molten
liquid bath that is used to start up additional cells. All of the cells
cannot be started and stabilized simultaneously because the
electrolytic chemical process requires a stable equilibrium between the
molten bath and cell operating temperatures. Until equilibrium is
achieved, the emission rates from the potline are not representative of
normal operation. For these reasons, the startup, stabilization, and
testing of an existing potline after a long-term shutdown may require
as long as 6 months to complete.
Therefore, we are proposing additional time for initial startup of
new or reconstructed potlines and startup of existing potlines that
have been shut down for long periods. The additional time proposed (180
days) is reasonable and is consistent with Sec. 63.7 of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which allows up to 180 days
after startup for existing, new, or reconstructed affected sources to
come online, complete performance tests, and establish parametric
monitoring limits.
Anode bake furnaces do not have the startup complexities associated
with the dozens of cells in a potline. Bake furnaces are restarted a
few sections at a time and require several days rather than several
weeks to stabilize. For this reason, we are proposing to allow 45 days
after initial startup of a new or reconstructed anode bake furnace or
startup of an existing anode bake furnace that was shut down for a long
period and subsequently restarted.
We are proposing that the 180-day period for startup of a potline
begin when the first pot is energized. For an anode bake furnace, the
45-day period would start at the beginning of the first anode bake
furnace cycle. This approach is consistent with the definition of
startup in the General Provisions, ``* * * the setting in operation of
an affected source for any purpose.''
Existing paste production plants also may have been shut down along
with potlines and anode bake furnaces. However, no performance test or
other type of compliance demonstration is required for paste plants.
Initial compliance with the equipment standard for this affected source
is based on inspections and review of their records to ensure that the
proper equipment has been installed. Under the rule, unless a
compliance extension is granted, an existing paste production plant
must comply with the rule by the required date. A new or reconstructed
paste production plant must meet the rule requirements upon startup;
this also applies if the plant has been shut down and subsequently
restarted. However, the owner or operator is required to provide
advance notice of the startup.
Section 63.847(g) of the rule allows the owner or operator to
demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements for new pitch
storage tanks either by conducting a performance test or by a design
evaluation. The proposed amendments would require the owner or operator
to demonstrate initial compliance within 30 days of the compliance date
if the owner or operator elects to conduct a performance test. We are
proposing a 30-day period because we believe this is adequate time to
complete the emission test.
During startup, the plant must meet all of the EPA requirements for
maintaining control equipment and minimizing emissions as much as
possible during the startup period. We have not added specific
requirements to the rule because this is already required by the
operation and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.6(e) of the General
Provisions. Section 63.6(e)(3) also requires the owner or operator to
operate and maintain the affected source and control equipment
according to the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
[[Page 12650]]
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the proposed amendments are not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and are therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements in the
1997 NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants under the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0360. A copy of information
collection request (ICR) No. 1767.02 may be obtained from Susan Auby by
mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection
Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-
1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://
www.epa.gov/icr.
Today's proposed rule amendments will have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The proposed
requirement for advance notification of startup for an existing
affected source that has been shut down has no impact because similar
advance notification is already required for a new or reconstructed
affected source. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The U.S. Small Business Administration defines a small entity in
this industry sector as: (1) A firm having no more than 1,000
employees; (2) a government 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 that is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities. None of the plants in this industry is classified as a small
entity.
D. 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 by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most 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.
Today's proposed amendments contain no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments. The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments
do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's proposed
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
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.'' These
proposed 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. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the proposed amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
These proposed amendments will not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
No tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these proposed amendments.
[[Page 12651]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA 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.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. These proposed amendments
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
These proposed 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.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C 272 note), directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Primary aluminum reduction plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 6, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart LL--[AMENDED]
2. Section 63.843 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.843 Emission limits for existing sources.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) 2.85 kg/Mg (5.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS2
potline.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.847 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a); and
b. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.847 Compliance provisions.
(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator of a primary aluminum
plant must comply with the requirements of this subpart by:
* * * * *
(c) Performance test dates. Following approval of the site-specific
test plan, the owner or operator must conduct a performance test to
demonstrate initial compliance according to the procedures in paragraph
(d) of this section. If a performance test has been conducted on the
primary control system for potlines or for the anode bake furnace
within the 12 months prior to the compliance date, the results of that
performance test may be used to demonstrate initial compliance. The
owner or operator must conduct the performance test:
(1) During the first month following the compliance date for an
existing potline (or potroom group) or anode bake furnace;
(2) By the date determined according to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section for a new or
reconstructed potline, anode bake furnace, or pitch storage tank (for
which the owner or operator elects to conduct an initial performance
test):
(i) By the 180th day following startup for a potline or potroom
group. The 180-day period starts when the first pot in a potline or
potroom group is energized.
(ii) By the 45th day following startup for an anode bake furnace.
The 45-day period starts at the beginning of the first anode bake
cycle.
(iii) By the 30th day following startup for a pitch storage tank.
The 30-day period starts when the tank is first used to store pitch.
(3) By the date determined according to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section for an existing potline or
anode bake furnace that was shut down at the time compliance would have
otherwise been required and is subsequently restarted:
(i) By the 180th day following startup for a potline or potroom
group. The 180-day period starts when the first pot in a potline or
potroom group is energized.
(ii) By the 45th day following startup for an anode bake furnace.
The 45-day period starts at the beginning of the first anode bake
cycle.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.850 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (a)(7) and removing the period at the end of paragraph
(a)(8) and replacing it with ``; and'' and by adding new paragraph
(a)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.850 Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(9) One-time notification of startup of an existing potline or
potroom group, anode bake furnace, or paste production plant that was
shut down for a long period and subsequently restarted. The owner or
operator must provide written notice to the Administrator at least 30
days before the startup.
* * * * *
5. Table 2 to subpart LL is amended by revising the entry for
``VSS2 potlines'' to read as follows:
[[Page 12652]]
Table 2 to Subpart LL.--Potline POM Limits for Emission Averaging
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton) [for given number of potlines]
Type -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
VSS2........................ 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Appendix A to subpart LL is amended by:
a. Revising the title of Appendix A;
b. Adding a new entry for Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) in
numerical order; and
c. Adding a new entry for Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(b)(5) in numerical
order.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart LL.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisioins citation Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.7(a)(2) (ii) and (iii)............ Performance testing No..................... Subpart LL specifies
requirements. performance test
dates.
* * * * * * *
63.9(b) (1)-(b)(5)................... Initial notifications.. Yes, except as noted in Sec. 63.850(a)(9)
``comment'' column. includes requirement
for startup of an
existing affected
source that has been
shut down.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 03-6303 Filed 3-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P