[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41352-41355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16361]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 41354]]

    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.

[[Page 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 cost-effective 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 non-agency 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:


Sec. 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