![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 21, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21351-21354]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ap00-16]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN99-1a; FRL-6573-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to particulate matter (PM)
emissions regulations for Dubois County, Indiana, which the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted to EPA on
February 3, 1999, as amendments to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The revisions include relaxation of some PM limits, elimination of
limits for boilers which are no longer operating, updating facility
names, and changing some boiler fuel types.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 20, 2000, unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by May 22, 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. Source Name Revisions
C. Fuel Usage and Heat Input Changes
D. Revised or Added Limits
III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. EPA Rulemaking Action
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 revised PM rules for Dubois County, Indiana, which
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted to
EPA on February 3, 1999. The revisions include relaxation of some PM
limits, elimination of limits for boilers which are no longer
operating, updating facility names, and changing some boiler fuel
types. The submitted revisions are contained in Title 326 Indiana
Administrative Code, Article 6, Rule 1, Section 9 (326 IAC 6-1-9).
II. What Are the Changes From Current Rules?
A. Sources Eliminated From the Rules
IDEM eliminated Indiana Cabinet, Dolly Madison Plant No. 3, Jasper
Table, Hoosier Desk, Jasper Turning boilers No. 1 and No. 2, Jasper
Novelty Furniture Plant No. 1, Jasper Novelty Furniture Plant No. 2,
Jasper Novelty Furniture Plant No. 3 wood boiler, Jasper Cabinet coal
and wood boiler, and Jasper Veneer boiler No. 3 from rule 326 IAC 6-1-
9. These sources have shut down.
B. Source Name Revisions
Indiana Chair is changed to Indiana Dimension; Indiana Desk is
changed to Indiana Furniture Industries; Huntingburg Wood Products is
changed to Styline Industries, Plant #8; Jasper Laminates is changed to
Jasper Laminates, Plant #1--Division of Kimball; Jasper Cabinets No. 2
is changed to Jasper Cabinets Corporation; Jasper Stylemasters 15th and
Cherry is changed to Artec; Jasper Office Furniture is changed to
Jasper Office Furniture Co., Inc., Plant #1; Jasper Turning is changed
to Artec; Jasper Novelty Furniture Plt. No. 3 is changed to Jasper
Furniture 30th St.; and Jasper Cabinet is changed to Jasper Corp.-
Kimball International.
C. Fuel Usage and Heat Input Changes
The fuel for Jasper Laminates, Plant #1--Division of Kimball boiler
No. 1 is changed from Wood-Oil-Waste Solvent to Wood-Wood Waste, and
its heat input is changed from 23 MMBTU/hr to 20.5 MMBTU/hr. The fuel
for Jasper Laminates, Plant #1--Division of Kimball boiler No. 2 is
changed from Oil to Natural Gas, and its heat input is changed from 16
MMBTU/hr to 16.8 MMBTU/hr. The fuel for Jasper Cabinets Corporation's
boiler is changed from Coal to Wood, and the heat input is changed from
3 MMBTU/hr to 5.3 MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Jasper Wood Products'
Coal-Wood Boiler No. 1 is changed from 10 MMBTU/hr to 6 MMBTU/hr. The
heat input for Jasper Wood Products' Coal-Wood Boiler No. 2 is changed
from 10 MMBTU/hr to 6 MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Artec's Wood Chip
Boiler is changed from 24 MMBTU/hr to 14 MMBTU/hr. The fuel for Jasper
Chair's boiler is changed from Coal to Wood, and its heat input is
changed from 6 MMBTU/hr to 18 MMBTU/hr.
D. Revised or Added Limits
The limits for Styline Industries, Plant #8 are changed from 2.8
tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr, and from 0.340 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The
limits for Forest
[[Page 21352]]
Wood Products No. 1 are changed from 2.1 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr, and
from 0.140 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. For Jasper Laminates, Plant
#1--Division of Kimball, the short-term limit for boiler No. 1 was
changed from 0.10 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU and the limits for boiler
#2 were changed to add limits of 0.2 tons/yr and 0.01 grains/dscf in
addition to the previously-existing limit of 0.003 lbs/MMBTU. For
Jasper Cabinets Corporation, a new 6.7 MMBTU/hr Wood Boiler was added
to the rule. This boiler has limits of 7.6 tons/yr and 0.60 lbs/MMBTU.
The limits for Coal-Wood Boiler No. 1 at Jasper Wood Products were
changed from 1.04 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr and from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to
0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The limits for Coal-Wood Boiler No. 2 at Jasper Wood
Products were changed from 3.1 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr and from 0.070
lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. Limits for Artec's Wood Chip Boiler were
changed from 2.8 tons/yr to 12.0 tons/yr and from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to
0.60 lbs/MMBTU.
III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis
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 Emissions Trading Policy Statement
(ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814). Emissions trades such as this, which result
in an overall increase in allowable emissions, require a ``Level III''
modeling analysis under the ETPS to ensure that the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be protected. A Level III analysis
is a full dispersion modeling analysis which must consider all sources
affecting the trade's area of impact.
The submitted modeling analysis includes emissions from all sources
with revised SIP limits, and uses a conservative background
concentration to account for other, nearby sources.
In the submitted modeling analysis, which uses 5 years of
meteorological data, a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS is indicated when
six exceedances of the 24-hour standard are predicted. Each receptor's
predicted 6th highest 24-hour value is, therefore, compared to the
standard. The 24-hour PM standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter
(g/m\3\). Indiana's modeling indicated that the highest, sixth
highest predicted 24-hour PM concentration at any receptor in the
Dubois County area was 132.5 g/m\3\. Thus, the modeling
analysis predicts that the 24-hour NAAQS will be protected.
A modeled violation of the annual PM standard is indicated when any
receptor's 5 year arithmetic mean annual PM concentration exceeds the
annual PM standard of 50 g/m\3\. Indiana's modeling analysis
indicated that the highest arithmetic mean annual PM concentration
predicted by the modeling for the Dubois County area was 33.6
g/m\3\. Therefore, the modeling analysis predicts that the
annual PM NAAQS will be met.
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
As stated above, the air quality modeling analysis conducted by
IDEM shows that the maximum daily and annual PM concentrations in
Dubois County should stay below the NAAQS.
V. EPA Rulemaking Action
We are approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to
particulate matter (PM) emissions regulations for Dubois County,
Indiana. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because
we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, we are proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comment by May 22. 2000. Should we receive such comments, we will
publish a final rule informing the public that this action will not
take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, you are advised
that this action will be effective on June 20, 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 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
[[Page 21353]]
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 this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 20, 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)(132) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(132) On February 3, 1999, Indiana submitted revised particulate
matter emissions regulations for Dubois County, Indiana. The submitted
revision amends 326 IAC 6-1-9, and includes relaxation of some PM
limits, the elimination of limits for boilers which are no longer
operating, updated facility names, and changes to boiler fuel types.
[[Page 21354]]
(i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana Administrative Code Title
326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1:
Nonattainment Area Limitations, Section 9: Dubois County. Added at 22
In. Reg. 423. Effective October 18, 1998.
[FR Doc. 00-9920 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P