[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41350-41352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16070]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN105-1a; FRL-6720-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana's State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision request to control emissions of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) from steel mill sinter plants in Lake and Porter Counties. The 
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted the SIP 
revision request on April 6, 1999. The revision applies to integrated 
steel mills in Lake and Porter Counties, and provides for limits on 
emissions of VOCs from those facilities. VOC emissions are a precursor 
of ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. High ozone levels are 
detrimental to human health and contribute to upper respiratory 
ailments such as asthma.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 5, 2000, unless EPA receives 
relevant adverse written comments by August 4, 2000. If EPA receives 
adverse written comment, it 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 recommend you contact Francisco J. Acevedo, 
Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6061 before visiting 
the Region 5 office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is EPA approving in this action?
II. Why did Indiana submit a sinter plant SIP revision request?
III. Who is affected by the Indiana sinter plant SIP revision?
IV. What does the Indiana sinter plant SIP revision require?
V. Where are the Indiana sinter plant requirements codified?
VI. What public review opportunities did Indiana provide?
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 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?

    We are approving Indiana's rule (IAC 8-13) that regulates emissions 
of VOCs from steel mill sinter plants in Lake and Porter Counties. Our 
approval makes the Indiana sinter plant rule part of the federally 
enforceable SIP under the Clean Air Act (Act).

II. Why Did Indiana Submit a Sinter Plant SIP Revision Request?

    Lake and Porter Counties are classified under the Act as severe 
nonattainment for ozone. High ozone levels are detrimental to human 
health and contribute to upper respiratory ailments such as asthma. The 
sintering process at steel mills emits significant amounts of VOC, and 
Indiana has identified reductions in emissions from the sintering 
process as making an important contribution toward improving air 
quality and attaining the ambient ozone air quality standard.

III. Who Is Affected by the Indiana Sinter Plant SIP Revision?

    The SIP revision requirements are applicable to all steel mill 
sinter plant operations in Lake and Porter Counties. According to 
Indiana, there are four existing sinter plants operating in Lake and 
Porter Counties. Three are located in Lake County: LTV Steel Company, 
Inland Steel Company and U.S. Steel, Gary Works; and, one is located in 
Porter County: Bethlehem Steel.

IV. What Does the Indiana Sinter Plant SIP Revision Require?

    The rule establishes three types of VOC emission limits for the 
period from May 1 through September 30 for sinter plant windbox exhaust 
gas VOC emissions: a seasonal cap, a maximum daily limit, and a lower 
daily limit for days on which an exceedance of the national ambient air 
quality standard for ozone is predicted to be likely. The emission 
limits are based on a VOC emission rate equal to twenty-five hundredths 
(0.25) pounds per sinter produced and a daily sinter production rate. 
In addition, from October 1 through April 30, sinter plant windbox 
exhaust gas VOC emissions are limited to thirty-six hundredths (0.36) 
pound per ton of sinter produced. The rule also contains control 
measure operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements, and record 
keeping and reporting requirements.

[[Page 41351]]

    The rule requires that by November 1, 1998, the owners or operators 
of the sinter plants mentioned above submit a report detailing, among 
other things, how the limits of the rule will be met. In addition, the 
rule requires the submission of a corrective action plan that will be 
implemented in the event of an exceedance, and a high ozone day action 
plan in the event that a high ozone day is predicted. At this time, all 
of the sinter plant operations covered by this rule have submitted the 
above documentation to the Indiana Department of Environment.
    The rule requires that on or after January 1, 1999, the sinter 
plant operations comply with all the above requirements.

V. Where Are the Indiana Sinter Plant Requirements Codified?

    Indiana has codified its sinter plant rule at 326 Indiana 
Administrative Code (IAC) 8-13. The Indiana Pollution Control Board 
adopted the rule on March 4, 1998. The rule was filed with the 
Secretary of State on June 24, 1998, and became effective on July 24, 
1998. The rule was published in the Indiana Register on August 1, 1998, 
at 21 IR 4195.

VI. What Public Review Opportunities Did Indiana Provide?

    Indiana held three public hearings in Indianapolis, Indiana on the 
sinter plant rule on December 3, 1997, February 4, 1998, and March 4, 
1998.

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action.

    In this rulemaking action, we are approving Indiana's April 6, 
1999, SIP revision request regarding steel mill sinter plant VOC 
controls (326 IAC 8-13) in Lake and Porter Counties.
    The EPA is publishing this action 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 received. This action will be 
effective without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse 
written comment by August 4, 2000. Should the Agency receive such 
comments, it will publish a notice 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, the public is 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 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

[[Page 41352]]

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 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 
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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective September 5, 2000 unless EPA 
receives adverse written comments by August 4, 2000.

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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 12, 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)(131) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (131) On April 6, 1999, Indiana submitted rules for the control of 
volatile organic compound emissions from steel mill sinter plant 
operations in Lake and Porter Counties as a revision to the State 
Implementation Plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. 
    326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-13: Sinter Plants. Adopted by the 
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board March 4, 1998. Filed with the 
Secretary of State June 24, 1998. Published at Indiana Register, Volume 
21, Number 11, August 1, 1998. Effective July 24, 1998.

[FR Doc. 00-16070 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P