[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8851-8854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4045]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN118-1a; FRL-6538-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to particulate matter (PM) 
emissions regulations for Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPL) in 
Marion County, Indiana, which were submitted by the Indiana Department 
of Environmental Management (IDEM) on November 22, 1999, as amendments 
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions include 
relaxation of some PM limits, tightening of other limits, and the 
elimination of limits for several boilers

[[Page 8852]]

which are no longer operating. The revisions also include the 
combination of annual emissions limits for several boilers, and 
correction of a typographical error in one limit. This SIP revision 
results in an overall decrease in allowed PM emissions of 52.54 tons 
per year (tpy).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 24, 2000, unless EPA receives 
relevant adverse written comments by March 24, 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 are the changes from current rules?
    A. Sources eliminated from the rules.
    B. Revised limits.
    C. Combined annual limits.
    D. Typographical error.
III. Analysis of supporting materials provided by Indiana.
IV. What are the environmental effects of this action?
V. EPA rulemaking action.
VI. Administrative requirements.
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 12875
    C. Executive Order 13045
    D. Executive Order 13084
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    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 revisions to PM emissions regulations for IPL in 
Marion County, Indiana, which were submitted by the IDEM on November 
22, 1999, as amendments to its SIP. The revisions apply to 3 generating 
stations located in Indianapolis: Perry K, Perry W (demolished), and E. 
W. Stout. The revisions include relaxation of some PM limits, 
tightening of other limits, and the elimination of limits for several 
boilers which are no longer operating. The revisions also include the 
combination of annual emissions limits for several boilers, and the 
correction of a typographical error in one limit. The submitted 
revisions are contained in Title 326 Indiana Administrative Code, 
Article 6, Rule 1, Section 12 (326 IAC 6-1-12).

II. What are the Changes From Current Rules?

A. Sources eliminated from the rules

    Indiana has eliminated from rule 326 IAC 6-1-12 boilers 17 and 18 
at IPL's Perry W generating station, and boilers 1 through 8 at IPL's 
E. W. Stout generating station. The annual PM emission limits for these 
eliminated sources totaled 52.54 tons per year.

B. Revised Limits

    Indiana has revised some short-term PM emissions limits for sources 
at IPL's Perry K generating station. Indiana has decreased the PM 
emissions limits for boilers 17 and 18 from 0.082 pounds per million 
British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) each to 0.015 lb/MMBTU each. Indiana 
has increased the PM emissions limits for boilers 15 and 16 from 0.082 
lb/MMBTU each to 0.106 lb/MMBTU each. Indiana has increased the PM 
emissions limit for boiler 12 from 0.125 lb/MMBTU to 0.175 lb/MMBTU.

C. Combined Annual Limits

    Indiana combined the annual emissions limits for boilers 11 through 
18 at IPL's Perry K generating station into one overall limit. The 
previous version of the rule contained limits of 302.2 tpy for boilers 
11 and 12 combined, 135.4 tpy for boilers 13 and 14 combined, and 46.8 
tpy for boilers 15, 16, 17, and 18 combined. The revised rule contains 
one PM limit of 484.4 tpy for boilers 11 through 18 combined.

D. Typographical Error

    Indiana promulgated the annual PM emission limit for Boiler 70 at 
IPL's E.W. Stout generating station as 830.7 tpy in 1981. However, this 
limit was printed in the November 1, 1981 Indiana Register (4 IR 2386) 
as 0.38 tpy. This SIP revision corrects this typographical error.

III. Analysis of supporting materials provided by Indiana

    The general criteria used by the EPA to evaluate such emissions 
trades, or ``bubbles'', under the Clean Air Act and applicable 
regulations are set out in the EPA's December 4, 1986, Emissions 
Trading Policy Statement (ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814). Emissions trades 
such as IPL's, which result in an overall decrease in allowable 
emissions, require a ``Level II'' modeling analysis under the ETPS to 
ensure that the NAAQS will be protected. A Level II analysis must 
include emissions from the sources involved in the trade, and must 
demonstrate that the air quality impact of the trade does not exceed 
set significance levels. For PM, the significance levels are 10 
micrograms per cubic meter (g/m\3\) for any 24-hour period, 
and 5 g/m\3\ for any annual period.
    The modeling analysis submitted by the IDEM in support of the 
requested IPL SIP revision is consistent with a Level II analysis. The 
analysis shows that the SIP revision will not cause or contribute to 
any exceedances of the PM NAAQS. The maximum modeled PM air quality 
impacts were 4.3 g/m\3\ in 24-hours, and 0.1 g/m\3\ 
on an annual basis. Therefore, IDEM has demonstrated that this SIP 
revision will not have a significant impact on air quality.

IV. What are the environmental effects of this action?

    This SIP revision will result in a decrease in allowable PM 
emissions of 52.54 tons per year. In addition, an air quality modeling 
analysis conducted by IDEM shows that the maximum daily and annual 
impacts of this SIP revision are well below established significance 
levels. Therefore, this SIP revision will not have an adverse effect on 
PM air quality.

V. EPA Rulemaking Action

    We are approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to PM 
emissions regulations for IPL in Marion County, Indiana. 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

[[Page 8853]]

March 24, 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 April 24, 2000.

VI. 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 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. 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.

D. 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. If the mandate is 
unfunded, EPA must 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 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. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 final 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 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to 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 annual 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

[[Page 8854]]

not required to submit a rule report regarding this rulemaking 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 April 24, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: February 4, 2000.
Francis X. Lyons,
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)(133) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (133) On November 22, 1999, Indiana submitted revised particulate 
matter emissions regulations for Indianapolis Power and Light Company 
in Marion County, Indiana. The submittal amends 326 IAC 6-1-12, and 
includes relaxation of some PM limits, tightening of other limits, and 
the elimination of limits for several boilers which are no longer 
operating. The revisions also include the combination of annual 
emissions limits for several boilers, and correction of a typographical 
error in one limit.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Emissions limits for Indianapolis 
Power and Light in Marion County contained in Indiana Administrative 
Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6: Particulate 
Rules, Rule 1: Nonattainment Area Limitations, Section 12: Marion 
County, subsection (a). Added at 22 In. Reg. 2857. Effective May 27, 
1999.

[FR Doc. 00-4045 Filed 2-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P