[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 2, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47336-47339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19369]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN100-1a, IN120-1a; FRL-6728-2a]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to total suspended particulate 
(TSP) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions regulations for 
National Starch and Chemical Company (National Starch), and TSP 
regulations for Allison Transmission (Allison). Both of these 
facilities are located in Marion County, Indiana. The Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted the revised 
regulations on February 3, 1999, August 30, 1999, and May 17, 2000, as 
amendments to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions 
include the relaxation of some limits, the tightening of one limit, and 
the elimination of limits for several sources which are no longer 
operating. The revisions also include the combination of annual 
emissions limits for several boilers, and recordkeeping requirements. 
These SIP revisions results in an overall decrease in allowed TSP 
emissions of about 406 tons per year (tpy) for National Starch, and no 
change in overall annual emissions for Allison.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 2, 2000, unless EPA receives 
relevant adverse written comments by September 1, 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. Recordkeeping requirements.
III. Analysis of supporting materials provided by Indiana.
IV. What are the environmental effects of these actions?
V. EPA rulemaking actions.
VI. Administrative requirements.
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 13045
    C. Executive Order 13084
    D. Executive Order 13132
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    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 TSP and SO2 emissions 
regulations for National Starch, and TSP regulations for Allison, both 
of which are located in Marion County, Indiana. IDEM submitted the 
revised regulations on August 30, 1999, February 3, 1999, and May 17, 
2000, as amendments to its SIP.
    The revisions for National Starch include the elimination of TSP 
limits for 35 units and SO2 limits for 4 boilers, all of 
which have shut down permanently. The National Starch revisions also 
include increases to the TSP limits of 6 units, and a decrease of the 
TSP limit for one unit. These SIP revisions results in an overall 
decrease in allowed TSP emissions of about 406 tpy of TSP.
    For Allison, the revisions include combining the annual TSP 
emissions limits for 5 boilers into one, and the addition of 
recordkeeping requirements for these boilers. There are no changes to 
the short-term emissions limits for individual boilers. These revisions 
will not change the overall allowed emissions for Allison.

II. What are the changes from current rules?

A. Sources eliminated from the rules.

    Indiana has eliminated 35 emission units at National Starch from 
TSP rule 326 IAC 6-1-12, and 4 boilers from SO2 rule 326 IAC 
7-4-2. The annual TSP emission limits for these eliminated sources 
totaled 519.7 tpy.

B. Revised limits.

    Indiana has revised some short-term and some long-term TSP 
emissions limits for sources at National Starch. Indiana has increased 
the annual limits for processes 61-9, 56-2, 56-1, 40-4, 40-3, and 40-2 
from 2.3, 1.1, 0.2, 6.7, 7.9, and 8.6 tpy to 4.1, 11.3, 7.02, 44.1, 
42.3, and 31.9 tpy, respectively. Indiana has increased the hourly 
concentration limits for processes 56-2, 56-1, 40-4,

[[Page 47337]]

40-3, and 40-2 from 0.001, 0.001, 0.005, 0.005, 0.005 grains per dry 
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) to 0.010, 0.020, 0.020, 0.020. 0.020 gr/
dscf, respectively. Indiana has decreased the hourly concentration 
limit for process 575-2 from 0.018 to 0.011 gr/dscf.

C. Combined annual limits.

    Indiana combined the annual emissions limits for boilers 1 through 
5 at Allison into one overall limit. The previous version of the rule 
contained limits of 0.6, 3.9, 6.4, 19.9, and 8.5 tpy for boilers 1, 2, 
3, 4, and 5, respectively. The revised rule contains one PM limit of 
39.3 tpy for boilers 1 through 5 combined.

D. Recordkeeping requirements.

    Indiana added recordkeeping requirements for Allison. Under these 
requirements, Allison is to maintain fuel type, fuel usage, and fuel 
heat content information for each boiler. Allison must also submit 
quarterly reports of this information to IDEM, and maintain the records 
for 5 years.

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 
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 particulate matter, 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.
    While the limits for Marion County, Indiana apply to TSP, the 
current National Ambient Air Quality Standards apply to particulate 
matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). In applying 
the ETPS, Indiana calculated allowed PM10 emissions from the 
sources involved in the trade based on published emissions fractions. 
These PM10 emissions estimates were used in determining the 
type of modeling analysis needed (i.e., Level II), and were also used 
in conducting the modeling analysis.
    Indiana's PM10 analysis showed that these SIP revisions 
will result in a decrease in allowable emissions of 316 tpy of 
PM10 for National Starch, and no change in allowable 
PM10 emissions for Allison.
    The modeling analyses submitted by the IDEM in support of the 
requested SIP revisions are consistent with a Level II analysis. The 
analyses shows that the SIP revisions will not cause or contribute to 
any exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS. The maximum modeled 
PM10 air quality impacts for National Starch were 9.18 
g/m\3\ in 24-hours, and 0.0 g/m\3\ on an annual 
basis. The maximum modeled PM10 air quality impacts for 
Allison were 0.9 g/m\3\ in 24-hours, and 0.08 g/m\3\ 
on an annual basis. Therefore, IDEM has demonstrated that these SIP 
revisions will not have a significant adverse impact on air quality.

IV. What are the environmental effects of these actions?

    These SIP revisions will result in a decrease in allowable TSP 
emissions of 406 tons per year for National Starch, and no change in 
overall annual TSP emissions for Allison. This equates to a reduction 
of 316 tpy of PM10 from National Starch, and no change in 
overall annual PM10 emissions for Allison. In addition, air 
quality modeling analyses conducted by IDEM show that the maximum daily 
and annual impacts of these SIP revisions are below established 
significance levels. Therefore, these SIP revisions will not have an 
adverse effect on air quality.

V. EPA rulemaking actions.

    We are approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to TSP 
and SO2 emissions regulations for National Starch, and TSP 
regulations for Allison, both of which are located in Marion County, 
Indiana. We are publishing these actions without prior proposal because 
we view these as noncontroversial revisions and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, we are proposing to approve the SIP revisions should 
adverse written comments be filed. These actions will be effective 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comment by September 1, 2000. Should we receive such comments, we will 
publish a final rule informing the public that these actions will not 
take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on these actions 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, you are 
advised that these actions will be effective on October 2, 2000.

VI. Administrative requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 
regulatory actions 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. These

[[Page 47338]]

actions do 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 these actions 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 actions promulgated do 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. These Federal actions approve 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 these 
actions.

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 these actions 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 these actions. 
Today's actions do 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 these actions must be filed in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 2, 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. These actions may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce their requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.


[[Page 47339]]


    Dated: June 16, 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 paragraphs (c)(124) and 
(c)(136) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (124) On February 3, 1999, and May 17, 2000, Indiana submitted 
revised particulate matter emissions regulations for Allison 
Transmission in Marion County, Indiana. The submittal amends 326 IAC 6-
1-12, and includes the combination of annual emissions limits for 5 
boilers into one overall limit as well as new recordkeeping 
requirements.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    Emissions limits and recordkeeping requirements for Allison 
Transmission 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. 
Added at 22 In. Reg. 416. Effective October 16, 1998.
* * * * *
    (136) On August 30, 1999, and May 17, 2000, Indiana submitted 
revised particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions regulations for 
National Starch in Marion County, Indiana. The submittal amends 326 IAC 
6-1-12, and includes elimination of shut down sources from the rules, 
increases in some limits, and a decrease in one limit.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (a) Emissions limits for National Starch 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. Added at 22 In. Reg. 1953. Effective March 
11, 1999.
    (b) Emissions limits for National Starch in Marion County contained 
in Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, 
Article 7: Sulfur Dioxide Rules, Rule 4: Emission Limitations and 
Requirements by County, Section 2: Marion County Sulfur Dioxide 
Emission Limitations. Added at 22 In. Reg. 1953. Effective March 11, 
1999.

[FR Doc. 00-19369 Filed 8-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P