[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19319-19323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8828]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN107-1a; FRL-6573-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana 
Particulate Matter Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 3, 1999, the State of Indiana Department of 
Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a site-specific State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) request to revise Particulate Matter (PM) 
emission limits for a facility owned by Central Soya Company, Inc., 
located in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. Central Soya is 
converting its grain elevator from a processing to a storage facility. 
The SIP revision request reflects changes in emission limits resulting 
from the shutdown of various operations at the plant, and provides new 
emission limits reflecting the addition of new operations.
    The projected PM emission decrease associated with the elimination 
of selected activities at the facility is 71.22 tons per year. The 
projected PM emission increases associated with the changes in 
operations at the facility is 14.81 tons per year. The overall change 
is a projected net decrease in PM emissions of approximately 56 tons 
per year from the facility. Because Indiana's Central Soya SIP revision 
request is consistent with the Clean Air Act and applicable policy, EPA 
is approving it.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 12, 2000, unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by May 11, 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: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. You can inspect copies of the State Plan submittal at 
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 
Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. (We recommended that you contact Mark J. Palermo at 
(312) 886-6082 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 886-6084.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Also, whenever we refer to 
``Central Soya'', we mean Central Soya Company, Incorporated, at 1102 
West 18th Street in Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Table of Contents

I. What Is EPA Approving in This Action?

II. The Indiana State Plan Requirement

    What pollutant does this revision affect?
    What is the existing State requirement for this source?
    What are the changes requested by Central Soya?
    What are the criteria for approving changes to Central Soya SIP 
requirements?

III. The Indiana Plan for Particulate Matter

    Who is affected by this SIP revision?

[[Page 19320]]

    Did the public have an opportunity to comment on the changes?
    What revisions are we approving?
    How did Indiana show that the changes to the SIP are approvable?

IV. Review and approval of the Indiana SIP revision for Central Soya, 
Company, Inc.

    Why is Indiana's SIP revision approvable?
    Are the particulate matter air quality standards and public 
health protected as a result of the approval of this SIP revision?
    When will this rule change become Federally enforceable?

V. Final Rulemaking Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 13045
    C. Executive Order 13084
    D. Executive Order 13132
    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 EPA Approving in This Action?

    EPA is approving a requested revision to Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 
6-1-12 for Central Soya, as submitted by Indiana to EPA with a letter 
dated February 3, 1999. The rule addresses particulate matter 
concentration and annual emission limits for a number of sources at 
Central Soya's Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana facility. Indiana 
submitted additional technical support information on February 23, 
1999. The revision reflects the elimination of old processes and the 
addition of new operations at the facility. We are approving mass rate 
limits reflected in both an annual rate, which represents a cap on the 
total emissions for that source, and a concentration limit in grains 
per dry standard cubic feet (grains/dscf).

II. The Indiana State Plan Requirement

What Pollutant Does This Revision Affect?

    This revision provides for the reduction in emissions of 
particulate matter from the sources which are closed down, and an 
increase in emissions for additional sources. Particulate emissions 
should change from a total of 71.22 tons per year, the previously 
approved emission level, to 14.81 tons per year. This represents a net 
emissions decrease of approximately 56 tons of PM per year.

What Is the Existing State Requirement for This Source?

    Prior to this SIP revision request, Central Soya had been subject 
to particulate matter emission limits for a boiler and a number of 
other sources and operations under 326 IAC 6-1-12(a). Those limits, as 
noted in the record of public hearing of the Air Pollution Control 
Board, are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Grains per
                                                                  dry
                Source description                 Tons/year   standard
                                                              cubic foot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vogt Boiler......................................      32.3    \1\ 0.350
Toasting Feed Mill...............................       5.0        0.013
Dry Soybean Meal.................................       5.6        0.03
Soybean Meal Cooler..............................      10.2        0.03
Pellet Cooler (South)............................       7.4        0.03
Feed Pellet Cooler (North).......................       9.0        0.034
Bean Bowl Storage................................       0.2        0.001
Conveyor System Aspiration.......................       0.42       0.001
Truck Pit Receiving Area.........................       1.1        0.006 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ lb/MMBtu.

What Are the Changes Requested by Central Soya?

    Central Soya asked the State to amend 326 IAC 6-1-12 to eliminate a 
number of sources and add several new sources. Central Soya has 
reported that the following sources (identified by point input I.D.) 
are no longer in operation: (01) Vogt Boiler; (02) Toasting Mill Feed; 
(03) Dry Soybean Mill; (04) Soybean Meal Cooler; (05) Pellet Cooler 
South; (06) Feed Pellet Cooler North; (08) Bean Bowl Storage; (09) 
Conveyor System Aspiration; and (10) Truck Pit. Central Soya has asked 
the State to delete these sources from the State rule.
    Central Soya also requested that EPA approve the revised emission 
limits applicable to (09A) Elevator Gallery Belt Trippers; (09B) 
Elevator Gallery Belt Loaders (East and West); and (09C) Elevator Grain 
Dryer Conveying Legs. Central Soya also requested that the State add 
two other sources to the inventory: (10A) Elevator #1 Truck and Rail 
Receiving System and Basement, and (10B) Elevator #2 Truck and Rail 
Receiving System. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board approved 
these changes on November 1, 1998.

What Are the Criteria for Approving Changes to Central Soya SIP 
Requirements?

    The general criteria used by EPA to evaluate such emissions trades, 
or ``bubbles,'' under the Clean Air Act are set out in the EPA's 
Emissions Trading Policy Statement (ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814, December 4, 
1986). The ETPS allows a State to forego a modeling analysis in those 
trades where the ``applicable net baseline emissions do not increase 
and in which the sum of the emissions increases, looking only at the 
increasing sources, totals less than 25 tons per year of particulate 
matter.'' EPA considers that such trades will have, at most, a ``de 
minimis'' impact on local air quality. 51 FR 43844.
    In the case of Central Soya, Indiana also elected to perform a 
``Level II'' modeling analysis under the ETPS. 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 Central Soya SIP revision is consistent with a Level II 
analysis. The analysis shows that the SIP revision request will not 
cause or contribute to any exceedances of the PM NAAQS. The maximum 
modeled PM air quality impacts were 1.8 g/m \3\ in 24-hours, 
and 0.0 g/m \3\ on an annual basis. Therefore, IDEM has 
demonstrated that this SIP revision will not have a significant impact 
on air quality.

III. The Indiana Plan for Particulate Matter

Who Is Affected by This SIP Revision?

    This revision reduces the emissions of particulate matter from 
selected sources in the Central Soya facility, as well as the facility 
as a whole. The reductions come about because of the change in 
operations at the plant. The State reports that the facility underwent 
a change from a processing plant to exclusively a storage facility. 
Citizens of Marion County living near the facility will benefit from 
the reductions because the net overall change should be a positive 
impact on air quality.

Did the Public Have an Opportunity To Comment on the Changes?

    The State published a public notice on November 3, 1997, and 
December 23, 1997, to inform citizens that the revised plan was 
available for review and public

[[Page 19321]]

comment. Indiana held two Air Pollution Control Board meetings on the 
Central Soya rule changes on December 3, 1997 and February 4, 1998. The 
State did not receive any adverse comment regarding these changes.

What Revisions Are We Approving?

    Previous to this SIP revision request, Central Soya had been 
subject to particulate matter emission limits for a boiler and a number 
of other sources and operations under 326 IAC 6-1-12(a). These approved 
limits are noted in the record of public hearing of the Air Pollution 
Control Board.
    Indiana has amended rule 326 IAC 6-1-12(a) to eliminate a number of 
sources, resulting in a reduction of annual particulate matter 
emissions from Central Soya. Indiana has added five sources to the 
rule. These are: Elevator Gallery Belt Trippers; Elevator Gallery Belt 
Loaders (East and West); Elevator Grain Dryer Conveying Legs; Elevator 
#1 Truck and Rail Receiving System and Basement; and Elevator #2 Truck 
and Rail Receiving System. The State-approved emission limits for the 
five new sources are listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Grains per dry standard
       Source description         Tons/year           cubic foot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevator Gallery Belt Tripper          0.92  0.006
 (East and West).
Elevator Gallery Belt Loaders          0.70  0.006
 (East and West).
Elevator Grain Dryer Conveying         1.01  0.006
 Legs.
Elevator #1 Truck/Rail Receiving       7.23  0.006
 System and Basement.
Elevator #2 Truck/Rail Receiving       4.95  0.006
 System.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Did Indiana Show That the Changes to the SIP Are Approvable?

    The State's technical support document included a table of the 
changes in emissions at the Central Soya facility for the sources 
listed. These changes, as published in the November 1, 1998 Indiana 
Register, Volume 22, Number 2 (page 417), indicate that the decreases 
in PM emissions should total 71.22 tons per year and the increases 
should total 14.81 tons per year. This represents a net decrease in 
emissions of 56.41 tons per year.
    The State also performed air emissions ambient modeling. The 
modeling shows that impacts are below the Level II significant impact 
levels of 10.0 g/m\3\ for the 24-hour and 5.0 g/m\3\ 
for the annual time averaged period.

IV. Review and Approval of the Indiana SIP Revision for Central 
Soya Company, Inc.

Why Is Indiana's SIP Revision Approvable?

    The revision to this SIP is approvable because the changes 
requested by the State meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and 
EPA's bubble policy, as noted above. Also, the emissions increases 
should have, at most, a ``de minimis'' impact on air quality as a 
result of the concurrent emissions reductions.

Are the Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards and Public Health 
Protected as a Result of the Approval of This SIP Submission?

    The particulate matter air quality standard and public health 
should be protected by this SIP revision. The Clean Air Act and 
applicable policy permit changes to the State's implementation plan 
without the need for a detailed technical review under certain 
carefully circumscribed situations. These include emission changes in 
which there is a net reduction in emissions. This approach should 
ensure that ambient air quality standards will be attained and 
maintained, and public health protected. The request being approved 
today results in a net reduction in particulate matter emissions.

When Will This Rule Change Become Federally Enforceable?

    This revision will become Federally enforceable on the effective 
date of this approval.

V. Final Rulemaking Action

    In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the Central Soya Company, 
Incorporated SIP submission as a revision to the Indiana SIP. The 
revision eliminates a total of nine source operations and adds five new 
operations. It has the overall effect of reducing the emissions of 
particulate matter from the facility. The Indiana Air Pollution Control 
Board approved the revision and published it in the Indiana Register, 
Volume 22, Number 2, page 417, dated November 1, 1998. EPA is 
publishing this direct final approval without prior proposal because 
EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
June 12, 2000, without further notice unless EPA receives relevant 
adverse written comment by May 11, 2000. Should the Agency receive such 
comments, it will publish a final rule informing the public that this 
direct final action will not take effect. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no comments are 
received, the public is advised that this action will be effective on 
June 12, 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 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

[[Page 19322]]

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. 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

[[Page 19323]]

this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by June 12, 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: March 28, 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)(130) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (130) On February 3, 1999, Indiana submitted a site specific SIP 
revision request for the Central Soya Company, Incorporated, Marion 
County, Indiana. The submitted revision amends 326 IAC 6-1-12(a), and 
provides for revised particulate matter emission totals for a number of 
source operations at the plant. The revision reflects the closure of 
nine operations and the addition of five new ones, resulting in a net 
reduction in particulate matter emissions.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The entry for Central Soya Company, 
Incorporated 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) amended at 22, Indiana Register 416, effective October 16, 1998.

[FR Doc. 00-8828 Filed 4-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U