[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4897-4899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2832]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IN62-1-7234a; FRL-5342-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is 
approving an August 25, 1995, State request for a site-specific 
revision to the Indiana sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). This revision amends the SO2 emission limitations 
applicable to the Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc. (Seagram), facility 
in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, so that two boilers may not operate 
simultaneously on coal or fuel oil. The Seagram facility has 
essentially operated under these restrictions for several years, 
thereby emitting less SO2 than the previous rules had allowed. The 
incorporation of this restriction into the Indiana SO2 SIP was 
deemed to be necessary after dispersion modeling in support of an 
SO2 SIP revision for Cincinnati, Ohio predicted violations of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 in Dearborn 
County, Indiana, if Seagram were to operate at the previously allowed 
SO2 emission rates. The restrictions contained in Indiana's August 
25, 1995, submittal will eliminate the predicted violations in Dearborn 
County, and their approval by USEPA will enable final Federal approval 
of the Cincinnati, Ohio SO2 SIP revision.

DATES: This action is effective on April 9, 1996 unless an adverse 
comment is received by March 11, 1996. If the effective date is 
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch 
(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State's submittal and USEPA's analysis (Technical 
Support Document) are available for inspection at the following 
location: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air 
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Mary Onischak at (312) 
353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Onischak at (312) 353-5954.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Indiana has revised the SO2 emission limits for the Joseph E. 
Seagram and Sons, Inc., distillery in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, as 
codified by the State at 326 Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC) 7-4-
13 (3) (Dearborn County Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations), and 
submitted this rule on August 25, 1995, to USEPA as a site-specific 
SO2 SIP revision. The SIP revision limits the use of sulfur-
bearing fuels at the Seagram distillery in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, and 
is intended to address potential 

[[Page 4898]]
violations of the SO2 NAAQS in Dearborn County, Indiana. The SIP 
revision was found complete in a letter dated October 20, 1995.

II. Emission Limitation

    In the previously approved SO2 SIP for Dearborn County, 
Indiana's rule 326 IAC 7-4-13 limited the emissions at each of 
Seagram's Boilers 5 and 6 to 1.92 pounds sulfur dioxide per million 
British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU). In addition, if Boiler Number 6 was 
operating on any fuel other than natural gas, the previous rule only 
allowed Boiler Number 5 to emit 1.07 lb/MMBTU. In response to a January 
5, 1994, request by USEPA, Indiana amended 326 IAC 7-4-13(3) to state 
that when both Boilers 5 and 6 are in operation, only one boiler may 
use coal or fuel oil. The rule also requires Seagram to keep records of 
its fuel usage and report this information to the State of Indiana.

III. Relationship to the Hamilton County, Ohio SIP

    The need for revisions to Indiana's Dearborn County SO2 SIP 
became apparent during USEPA's review of an Ohio SO2 SIP revision, 
which had been requested by USEPA on December 22, 1988. On October 18, 
1991, the State of Ohio submitted to USEPA the revised SO2 SIP for 
Hamilton County, Ohio. Hamilton County, Ohio, is adjacent to Dearborn 
County, Indiana. In the course of Ohio's SIP development, dispersion 
modeling was used to evaluate the emissions from significant SO2 
sources in and around Hamilton County, including some sources in 
Indiana. One of the Indiana sources considered in the Ohio modeling 
study was the Seagram facility. Ohio's modeling predicted violations of 
the 3-hour and 24-hour SO2 standard at receptor points in Dearborn 
County, Indiana, when Seagram was modeled at its highest allowable 
SO2 emission rate in accordance with USEPA guidance; in addition, 
the Seagram facility was shown to be the main contributor to the 
modeled violations in Dearborn County.
    Seagram's highest allowable emission rate assumed that Boiler 
Number 5 operated continuously on fuel oil. However, in a letter dated 
September 1, 1992, Seagram informed Ohio and Indiana that Boiler Number 
5, Seagram's standby boiler, had not operated on fuel oil in the 
previous six years.1 On January 5, 1994, USEPA requested that 
Indiana incorporate this restriction into its SO2 SIP as an 
enforceable limitation on Seagram's operation.

    \1\ The company also stated in the letter that it did not intend 
to operate Boiler Number 5 on fuel oil while Boiler Number 6 was 
operating on coal or fuel oil, without first notifying and obtaining 
permission from Ohio and Indiana. USEPA notes that the rule being 
approved today does not contain any such notification/permission 
mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because some Hamilton County, Ohio, SO2 sources also 
contributed to the modeled violations in Dearborn County, Indiana, 
USEPA could not approve the Hamilton County, Ohio SO2 SIP before 
the modeled violations were fully addressed. Instead, USEPA 
conditionally approved the Hamilton County, Ohio, SO2 SIP on 
August 23, 1994, under the condition that approvable revisions to the 
Dearborn County, Indiana SO2 SIP would be submitted to USEPA by 
September 23, 1995. Indiana met this condition, submitting the Seagram 
rule revision to USEPA on August 25, 1995. With enforceable boiler use 
restrictions in the Indiana SIP, the Seagram facility's SO2 
emissions may be included in the Hamilton County SO2 dispersion 
modeling study at a lower level than had been assumed previously. Ohio 
has already modeled the Seagram facility at the lower emissions allowed 
under the boiler restrictions, and found that the predicted SO2 
NAAQS violations in Dearborn County were eliminated. USEPA has reviewed 
this modeling and determined that it is acceptable. Federal approval of 
Indiana's August 25, 1995, SIP revision will therefore enable USEPA to 
finalize the Hamilton County, Ohio, SO2 SIP approval.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

    For the reasons discussed above, USEPA is approving 326 IAC 7-4-13 
(3). Indiana's revised Dearborn County SO2 rule creates an 
enforceable restriction on the operations of fossil fuel-fired boilers 
at the Seagram facility. This rule addresses the potential SO2 
NAAQS violations predicted by an Ohio modeling study, and will provide 
for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Dearborn County, Indiana.
    The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document 
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed 
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the 
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical 
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on 
April 9, 1996, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by 
March 11, 1996.
    If the USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the 
approval discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its 
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document 
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will 
then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Please be aware 
that the USEPA will institute a second comment period on this action 
only if warranted by significant revisions to the rulemaking based on 
comments received in response to this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the public that this action 
will be effective on April 9, 1996.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in 
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 
1995, USEPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to a 
State, local, and/or tribal government, in the aggregate. The USEPA 
must also develop a plan with regard to small governments that would be 
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
    This rule approves the incorporation into the SIP of an existing 
State rule which applies only to a single private sector source located 
in Dearborn County, Indiana. It imposes no additional requirements. To 
the extent that the rules being approved by this action will impose any 
mandate upon this source, such a mandate will not result in estimated 
annual costs of $100 million or more to the source. The rule does not 
impact any governments. 

[[Page 4899]]
Therefore, no action is required under the Unfunded Mandates Act.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.) 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    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 impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities 
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship 
under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of the State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to 
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. 
USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    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 April 9, 1996. 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

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Sulfur oxides.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Indiana was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: November 21, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart P--Indiana

    2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) On August 25, 1995, the State submitted regulations adopted 
by the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board as part of title 326 of the 
Indiana Administrative Code for incorporation into the Indiana sulfur 
dioxide State Implementation Plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) 326 Indiana Administrative Code 7-4-13(3); Dearborn County 
sulfur dioxide emission limitations; effective May 18, 1995. Published 
in the Indiana Register, Volume 18, Number 9, June 1, 1995.

[FR Doc. 96-2832 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P