41352 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. 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.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective September 5, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by August 4, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 5,

2000. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(131) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(131) On April 6, 1999, Indiana

submitted rules for the control of

volatile organic compound emissions

from steel mill sinter plant operations in

Lake and Porter Counties as a revision

to the State Implementation Plan.

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

326 Indiana Administrative Code 8–

13: Sinter Plants. Adopted by the

Indiana Air Pollution Control Board

March 4, 1998. Filed with the Secretary

of State June 24, 1998. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number

11, August 1, 1998. Effective July 24,

1998.

[FR Doc. 00–16070 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN128–1a; FRL–6713–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revised

opacity limits for three casting

complexes at ALCOA Warrick

Operations, which were submitted by

the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM) on

January 13, 2000 as amendments to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP).

ALCOA Warrick Operations is a primary

aluminum smelter located in Newburgh,

Indiana. The revised limits allow higher

opacity emissions during fluxing

operations at three casting complexes.

This action does not reverse applicable

mass emissions limits.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41353

DATES: This rule is effective on

September 5, 2000, unless EPA receives

adverse written comments by August 4,

2000. If adverse comment is received,

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the rule in the Federal Register and

inform the public that the rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

You may inspect copies of the State

submittal and EPA’s analysis of it at:

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pohlman, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the EPA approving?

II. What facilities/operations does this action

apply to?

III. What are the provisions of the opacity

limits?

IV. What are the current limits on these

sources?

V. What supporting materials did Indiana

provide?

VI. What are the environmental effects of this

action?

VII. EPA rulemaking action.

VIII. Administrative requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is the EPA Approving?

We are approving as SIP revisions

revised opacity limits for three

processes at ALCOA Warrick

Operations, which were submitted by

IDEM on January 13, 2000. The revised

limits allow higher opacity emissions

during fluxing operations at three

casting complexes. This action does not

change mass emissions limits for these

sources.

II. What Facilities/Operations Does This

Action Apply To?

We are approving revised opacity

limits for three processes at ALCOA

Warrick Operations. ALCOA Warrick

Operations is a primary aluminum

smelter located in Newburgh, Indiana.

Molten aluminum is transferred from

the melt furnaces into the holding

furnaces for final fluxing, then cast into

slabs. There are no particulate matter

(PM) control devices for these processes.

Emissions are exhausted through

ventilation hoods to the exhaust stacks

for each holding furnace. The revised

limits apply to the #1 Complex

(Horizontal Direct Chill Casting, or

HDC), the #8 Complex (Electromagnetic

Casting, or EMC) and the #5 HDC

complex. Each of these casting

complexes contains two holding

furnaces.

III. What Are the Provisions of the

Opacity Limits?

The revised limits for both the #1

complex and the #8 complex are

contained in revised operation permits

OP 87–07–91–0112 thru 0116, issued by

IDEM on October 1, 1999. The revised

limit for the #5 complex is contained in

revised operation permit OP 87–07–91–

0113 issued by IDEM on December 15,

1999.

The revised limits allow emissions

with an opacity up to 80 percent during

the fluxing portion of the production

cycle from the East and West holding

furnace exhaust stacks at the #1

Complex (HDC). This opacity is allowed

for no more than 6 six-minute averaging

periods, and only during fluxing. For all

other portions of the production cycle,

the limit remains at 40 percent. Fluxing

typically lasts 12–15 minutes of the 5–

10 hour production cycle for the HDC,

but can last as long as 35 minutes.

For the East and West holding furnace

exhaust stacks at the #8 Complex (EMC),

the revised limit allows opacity during

fluxing up to 85 percent for 2 six-minute

averaging periods, and up to 80 percent

opacity for 4 additional six-minute

averaging periods. During all other

portions of the production cycle, the

opacity of emissions from the EMC

continues to be limited to 40 percent.

Fluxing typically lasts 12–15 minutes of

the 3–4 hour production cycle for the

EMC, but can last as long as 35 minutes.

For the East and West holding furnace

exhaust stacks at the #5 Complex (HDC),

the revised limit allows opacity during

fluxing up to 80 percent for 3 six-minute

averaging periods, 75 percent opacity

for 1 six-minute averaging period, 65

percent opacity for 1 six-minute

averaging period, and 55 percent

opacity for 1 six-minute averaging

period. During all other portions of the

production cycle, the opacity of

emissions from the EMC continues to be

limited to 40 percent. Fluxing typically

lasts 12–15 minutes of the 5–10 hour

production cycle for the HDC, but can

last as long as 35 minutes.

Mass PM emissions remain

unchanged for all stacks at all

complexes.

IV. What Are the Current Limits on

These Sources?

These processes are currently covered

by SIP rule Title 326 Indiana

Administrative Code, Article 5, Rule 1,

Section 2 (326 IAC 5–1–2), which

provides a 40 percent opacity limit (6-

minute average).

They are also covered by a SIP mass

emission limit contained in 326 IAC 6–

3–2. This regulation provides for a limit

based on the process rate, and continues

to apply at all times.

V. What Supporting Materials Did

Indiana Provide?

Indiana provided stack test data and

opacity readings. ALCOA conducted

stack tests to show that the revised

opacity limit would still be protective of

the SIP mass PM emission limits.

ALCOA conducted two rounds of stack

tests on the #1 and #8 complexes, and

one round on the #5 complex. ALCOA

conducted opacity readings, utilizing

EPA reference Method 9, during fluxing

for many of the runs.

The first round of tests on the #1 and

#8 complexes measured emissions of

PM over the entire production cycle.

(The production cycle lasts 5–10 hours

for the HDC complexes (#1 and #5) and

3–4 hours for the EMC complex (#8).)

Nine test runs were conducted on each

exhaust stack. Fluxing was conducted

for 35 minutes during each run, to

approximate a worst-case scenario.

(Fluxing normally lasts only 12–15

minutes.)

The second round of tests for the #1

and #8 complexes and the single round

for the #5 complex were conducted for

only one hour of the production cycle

each, including the fluxing portion of

the cycle. These tests were designed to

show compliance with mass PM

emissions limits on a one-hour basis.

The tests include the fluxing portion of

the cycle, since fluxing produces the

bulk of emissions from the holding

furnaces. 3–12 test runs were conducted

on each exhaust stack. During these

tests, fluxing was also conducted for a

‘‘worst-case’’ time of 35 minutes.

ALCOA took opacity readings during

the runs.

41354 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The tests show that ALCOA can meet

SIP mass emissions limits at the EMC

and HDC holding furnace stacks during

fluxing. Even though opacity was often

high during fluxing, no violations of the

SIP mass PM emissions limits were

measured. The tests indicate that the

revised opacity limits should not result

in violations of the mass limits for these

sources.

VI. What Are the Environmental Effects

of This Action?

The revised opacity limits will allow

darker smoke to be emitted than does

the current SIP rule. However, since no

mass limits are being revised, and since

the revised opacity limits are protective

of the current mass limits, this SIP

revision should not jeopardize air

quality.

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action

We are approving, through direct final

rulemaking, revised opacity limits for

three casting complexes at ALCOA

Warrick Operations. We are publishing

this action without prior proposal

because we view this as a

noncontroversial revision and anticipate

no adverse comments. However, in a

separate document in this Federal

Register publication, we are proposing

to approve the SIP revision should

adverse written comments be filed. This

action will be effective without further

notice unless we receive relevant

adverse written comment by August 4,

2000. Should we receive such

comments, we will publish a final rule

informing the public that this action

will not take effect. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, you are advised

that this action will be effective on

September 5, 2000.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

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 Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements 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.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41355

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: Rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 5,

2000. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: May 31, 2000.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(135) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(135) On January 1, 2000, Indiana

submitted revised opacity limits for

three processes at ALCOA Warrick

Operations. The revised limits allow

higher opacity emissions during fluxing

operations at three casting complexes.

This action does not change mass

emissions limits for these sources.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Modifications to Operating

Permits OP 87–07–91–0112 thru 0116:

Permit I.D. 173–10913, Issued on

October 1, 1999, to ALCOA, Inc.—

Warrick Operations. Effective October 1,

1999.

(B) Modifications to Operating Permit

OP 87–07–91–0113: Permit I.D. 173–

11414, Issued on December 15, 1999, to

ALCOA, Inc.—Warrick Operations.

Effective December 15, 1999.

[FR Doc. 00–16361 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300983; FRL–6496–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Methoxyfenozide; Benzoic Acid, 3-

methoxy-2-methyl-2-(3,5-

dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)hydrazide; Pesticide

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: . This regulation establishes

tolerances for residues of

methoxyfenozide in or on cotton,

undelinted seed; cotton gin byproducts;

pome fruit; apple pomace, wet; milk,

meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and

sheep and fat of cattle, goats, hogs,

horses and sheep; and tolerances for the

combined residues of methoxyfenozide

and its glucuronide metabolite in meat

byproduct (except liver) and liver of

cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep.

Rohm and Haas Company requested

these tolerances under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act (FQPA) of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective July

5, 2000. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–300983, must be received

by EPA on or before September 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify