[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