66280 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) An August 2, 2005 letter from 

Richard Sprott, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Jerry Grover, 

Utah County Commission, addressing 

limits on Utah County authority to 

revise vehicle emission cut-points. 

(B) An August 19, 2005 letter from 

Richard Sprott, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Richard 

Long, EPA Region VIII, providing 

supplemental Technical Support 

Documentation to Volumes 11 and 12 of 

the State’s Technical Support Document 

for the Provo area’s carbon monoxide 

attainment demonstration and 

maintenance plan that was submitted by 

Governor Walker on April 1, 2004. 

(C) A September 8, 2005 letter from 

Jan Miller, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Kerri Fiedler, 

EPA Region VIII, to address 

typographical errors in ‘‘Section X, Part 

D, Utah County Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance Program’’

that was submitted by Governor Walker 

on April 1, 2004. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 81.345, the table entitled 

‘‘Utah-Carbon Monoxide’’ is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘Provo Area’’

to read as follows: 

§ 81.345 Utah. 

* * * * * 

UTAH—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Provo Area 

Utah County (part) city of Provo ...................................... 1/3/06 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21837 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0031; FRL–7992–8] 

RIN 2060–AK50 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for primary 

aluminum reduction plants. The 

amendments will revise the emission 

limit for polycyclic organic matter 

(POM) applicable to one potline 

subcategory. The amendments will 

revise the compliance provisions to 

clarify the dates by which all plants 

must meet the NESHAP requirements, 

and to specify 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 

making these amendments to reduce 

compliance uncertainties and improve 

understanding of the NESHAP 

requirements. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2002–0031. All documents in 

the docket at listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/edkpub/ 

index.jsp. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR–

2002–0031, EPA West Building, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–

1742. A reasonable fee may be charged 

for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Donna Lee Jones, EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Metals 

Group (C439–02), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 

541–5251, fax number (919) 541–3207, 

e-mail address: 

Jones.DonnaLee@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities affected by the 

NESHAP include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66281 

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 subpart LL (NESHAP for Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants). If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA regional representative as listed in 

40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions). 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s final 

amendments will also be available on 

the Worldwide Web through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the final 

amendments will be posted on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

judicial review of the final amendments 

is achievable only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

January 3, 2006. Under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the 

amendments which was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review. Under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements that are 

established by this final action may not 

be challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the Final Amendments 

A. What Is the Final POM Emission Limit 

for VSS2 Potlines? 

B. What are the final changes to the 

compliance provisions? 

III. Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Amendments 

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 and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review 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). 

We issued the NESHAP for primary 

aluminum plants (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LL) on October 7, 1997 (62 FR 

52384). The NESHAP contain emission 

limits and standards for total fluorides 

(TF), which is a surrogate for hydrogen 

fluoride, and POM. These limits apply 

to each new or existing potline, paste 

production plant, and anode bake 

furnace and to each new pitch storage 

tank associated with primary aluminum 

production and located at a major 

source. 

After promulgation, industry 

representatives identified two 

significant compliance-related issues: 

• 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 

• 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 amendments 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. 

We proposed amendments to the 

existing rule on March 17, 2003 (68 FR 

12645). We provided a 60-day comment 

period for the proposed amendments 

and received a total of five comment 

letters. Three of the comment letters 

were from interested private citizens, 

one was unrelated to this rulemaking, 

and one was from the industry trade 

association. A copy of each of these 

comment letters is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID 

No. OAR–2002–0031). The final 

amendments reflect full consideration of 

all the comments we received. 

II. Summary of the Final Amendments 

A. What Is the Final POM Emission 

Limit for VSS2 Potlines? 

The VSS2 subcategory includes all 

existing vertical stud Soderberg 

potlines. Section 63.843(a)(2)(i) of the 

existing rule limits POM emissions from 

each existing VSS2 potline to 1.8 

kilograms per Megagram (kg/Mg) or 3.6 

pounds per ton (lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced for each potline. The final 

amendments change the POM limit to 

2.85 kg/Mg (5.7 lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced. Table 2 to subpart LL gives 

the POM emission limits for potlines at 

those plants that comply by emissions 

averaging. The final 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 

B. What are the final changes to the 

compliance provisions? 

Section 63.847(a) of the existing rule 

currently requires the owner or operator 

to demonstrate initial compliance by 

specified dates. The final amendments 

clarify the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) by replacing the phrase 

‘‘demonstrate initial compliance’’ with 

the word ‘‘comply.’’ This change 

distinguishes the compliance date of the 

rule from the date by which a plant 

66282 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

must actually conduct their initial 

performance test. 

Section 63.847(c) of the existing 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, the 

final amendments require that the 

owner or operator conduct the initial 

performance test by: 

• The 180th day after startup for a 

potline (or potroom group). The 180-day 

period starts when the first pot in a 

potline (or potroom group) is energized. 

• The 45th day from the start of the 

second anode bake cycle (but no later 

than the 180th day from the startup of 

the anode bake furnace). 

• 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 final amendments will 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 adding 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, the 

final amendments will require 180 days 

after startup for a potline (or potroom 

group) and 45 days from the start of the 

second anode bake cycle (but no later 

than 180 days from the startup of the 

anode bake furnace). The amendments 

will also change the notification 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.850(a) of the 

existing 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 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LL, shows the requirements in 

the NESHAP General Provisions (40 

CFR part 63, subpart A) that do not 

apply to primary aluminum reduction 

plants. We are also amending appendix 

A to reflect the changes in performance 

test dates and the new notification 

requirement. 

III. Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Amendments 

We received only two substantive 

comments on the proposed 

amendments. Two other commenters 

simply stated a concern that the 

proposed emission limit for VSS2 

potlines was too high. However, these 

commenters provided no additional 

information or rationale that would 

allow further consideration. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

45-day period to complete startup and 

performance tests for an anode bake 

furnace is insufficient to ensure testing 

under normal operating conditions. The 

startup typically includes a refractory 

drying/curing cycle that may take from 

45 to 120 days, depending on several 

factors. During the drying/curing cycle, 

firing rates are retarded, and in some 

cases, the drying cycle is performed 

with baked or partially-baked anodes, 

which results in POM emissions that are 

lower than normal. Consequently, a 

performance test conducted during the 

refractory drying/curing cycle is not 

representative of normal operation. The 

commenter offered two options to 

ensure testing under normal operating 

conditions: (1) start the 45-day period at 

the beginning of the ‘‘first anode bake 

cycle,’’ which is defined as the cycle 

that occurs after the ‘‘refractory drying/ 

curing cycle’’; or (2) define ‘‘anode bake 

cycle’’ to include the curing/drying step 

and start the 45-day period at the 

beginning of the second anode bake 

cycle. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion for clarifying 

the time period for startup of anode 

bake furnaces to ensure that the 

performance tests are performed under 

normal operating conditions. We agree 

that anode production during the 

drying/curing cycle is not representative 

of normal operating conditions. 

Consequently, we changed the rule 

provisions in 40 CFR 63.847(c)(2)(ii) 

and (c)(3)(ii) to state that the 45-day 

period starts at the beginning of the 

second anode bake cycle instead of the 

first anode bake cycle. However, we 

believe that performance testing should 

always be completed within 180 days 

from the beginning of the first anode 

bake cycle. With this change, 

performance testing will occur during 

normal anode production after the 

refractory has dried and cured. We also 

added a definition of ‘‘anode bake 

cycle’’ to the existing rule. ‘‘Anode bake 

cycle’’ means the period during which 

the regularly repeated sequence of 

loading, preheating, firing, cooling, and 

removing anodes from all sections 

within an anode bake furnace occurs 

one time. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

increased POM emissions are not 

justifiable because of the serious human 

health effects and the potential 

environmental and ecological effects 

due to POM’s persistence in the 

environment, potential for 

accumulation, and toxicity. This 

commenter estimates that the revised 

VSS2 limit will increase POM emissions 

by 5.6 million lbs/year based on 

nationwide aluminum production of 2.7 

million tons/year. The commenter asks 

how such emissions can be considered 

‘‘not economically significant’’ and not 

in need of an environmental health 

assessment. 

Response: We do not agree with the 

commenter’s estimate of increased POM 

emissions. No increase in POM 

emissions will occur because the limit 

reflects the actual level of control that 

has been achieved by the one plant in 

the VSS2 category. The POM emissions 

limit will ensure that this plant’s POM 

emissions do not increase in the future. 

In addition, the commenter’s use of total 

nationwide aluminum production to 

generate emission estimates is 

inappropriate because the POM limit for 

VSS2 potlines will affect only one plant 

out of over 20 primary aluminum 

plants. Consequently, the commenter’s 

assertion of increased emissions from 

primary aluminum plants has no basis 

in fact. 

The revised emission limit correctly 

reflects MACT for potlines in the VSS2 

subcategory based on CAA 

requirements. Our rationale for the 

revised POM limit for VSS2 potlines is 

detailed in the preamble to the proposed 

amendments (51 FR 12645, 12648; 

March 17, 2003), and a copy of our 

analysis of the data is included in the 

docket. 

We understand the commenter’s 

concern about the potential health 

effects of POM. Section 112(f) of the 

CAA requires that we evaluate health 

risks and ecological effects within 8 

years after the promulgation of the 

MACT standards. If the technologybased standards are found not to be 

protective of public health and the 

environment, CAA section 112(f) 

requires us to promulgate more stringent 

standards that protect the public health 

with an ample margin of safety and 

reasonably prevent adverse 

environmental effects. These potential 

impacts will be fully evaluated in our 

upcoming review of the existing rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), 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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66283 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of 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 final 

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 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

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. However, 

OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing rule (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LL) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has 

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0360, EPA Information Collection 

Request (ICR) No. 1767.04. A copy of 

the OMB-approved ICR may be obtained 

from Susan Auby by mail at the Office 

of Environmental Information, 

Collection Strategies Division, EPA 

(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

Auby.Susan@epa.gov, or by calling 

(202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a 

collection of information; search data 

sources; complete and review the 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

the final amendments. For the purposes 

of assessing the impact of today’s final 

amendments on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small 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 final rule 

amendments on small entities, EPA has 

concluded that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The final amendments 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), 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, 

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 costeffective, 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 leastcostly, 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. 

EPA has determined that the final 

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. No 

costs are attributable to the final 

amendments. Thus, the final 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. The EPA has also 

determined that the final amendments 

contain no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Thus, today’s final 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (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.’’

The final 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 final 

amendments. 

66284 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 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.’’ The final amendments do 

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 rule. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to the final 

amendments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (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. 

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. The final amendments are 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because they are based on control 

technology and not on health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The final amendments are not subject 

to Executive Order 13211 (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 (Public Law 104–

113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in their regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impracticable. The VCS are technical 

standards (e.g., material specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

The final amendments do not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 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 the final amendments 

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 final amendments 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). The 

amendments will be effective on 

November 2, 2005. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is 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 63.842 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, a 

definition for the term, ‘‘Anode bake 

cycle’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.842 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Anode bake cycle means the period 

during which the regularly repeated 

sequence of loading, preheating, firing, 

cooling, and removing anodes from all 

sections within an anode bake furnace 

occurs one time. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.843 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.847 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 from the start of 

the second anode bake cycle (but no 

later than the 180th day from the startup 

of the anode bake furnace). 

(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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66285 

(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 from the start of 

the second anode bake cycle (but no 

later than the 180th day from the startup 

of the anode bake furnace). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.850 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(7); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(8); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.850 Notification, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(7) One-time notification for each 

affected source of the intent to use an 

HF continuous emission monitor; 

(8) Notification of compliance 

approach. The owner or operator shall 

develop and submit to the applicable 

regulatory authority, if requested, an 

engineering plan that describes the 

techniques that will be used to address 

the capture efficiency of the reduction 

cells for gaseous hazardous air 

pollutants in compliance with the 

emission limits in §§ 63.843, 63.844, 

and 63.846; and 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Table 2 to subpart LL is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘VSS2 

potlines’’ to read as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63.—POTLINE POM LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Type 

Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton) 

[for given number of potlines] 

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 

■ 7. Appendix A to subpart LL is 

amended by revising the title of 

appendix A and by adding new entries, 

in numerical order, for § 63.7(a)(2)(ii) 

and (iii) and § 63.9(b)(1)–(5) to read as 

follows: 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

[40 CFR part 63, subpart A] 

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) .......... Performance testing requirements.No ...................................... Subpart LL specifies performance test dates. 

* * * * * * * 

63.9(b)(1)–(5) ..................... Initial notifications .............. Yes, except as noted in 

‘‘comment’’ column.

§ 63.850(a)(9) includes requirement for startup of an 

existing affected source that has been shut down. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21840 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 05–2692; MB Docket No. 04–218; RM–

10987, RM–11237] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Cimarron, Las Vegas and Pecos, NM 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, 69 FR 35561 

(June 25, 2004) this Report and Order 

reallots Channel 264C3, Station 

KLVF(FM) (‘‘KLVF’’), Las Vegas, New 

Mexico, to Pecos, New Mexico, and 

modifies Station KLVF’s license 

accordingly. The coordinates for 

Channel 264C3 at Pecos, New Mexico, 

are 35–40–48 NL and 105–32–26 WL, 

with a site restriction of 16.9 kilometers 

(10.5 miles) northeast of Pecos. The 

Report and Order also allots Channel 

296A to Las Vegas, New Mexico, at 

coordinates of 35–36–33 NL and 105–

09–31 WL, with a site restriction of 5.4 

kilometers (3.3 miles) east of Las Vegas, 

New Mexico. 

DATES: Effective November 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 04–218, 

adopted October 12, 2005, and released 

October 14, 2005. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–