15844 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN53–1a; FRL–5710–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

approving the following as revisions to

the Indiana ozone State Implementation

Plan (SIP): a Rate-Of-Progress (ROP)

plan to reduce Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) emissions in Lake

and Porter Counties by 15 percent (%)

by November 15, 1996; a contingency

plan to reduce VOC emissions by an

additional 3% beyond the ROP plan,

and an Indiana agreed order requiring

VOC emission controls on Keil

Chemical Division, Ferro Corporation,

located in Lake County (Keil Chemical).

The 15% ROP plan, 3% contingency

plan, and the agreed order were

submitted together on June 26, 1995.

The plans and agreed order help to

protect the public’s health and welfare

by reducing the emissions of VOC that

contribute to the formation of groundlevel ozone, commonly known as urban

smog.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

2, 1997 unless adverse comments are

received by May 5, 1997. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available at the above

address for public inspection during

normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark J. Palermo, Environmental

Protection Specialist, at (312) 886–6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on 15% ROP and

Contingency Plans Requirements

On November 15, 1990, Congress

enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean

Air Act (Act); Public Law 101–549, 104

Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q. Section 182(b)(1) requires states

with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate and above to

submit a SIP revision known as a 15%

ROP plan. This plan must reflect an

actual reduction in typical ozone season

weekday VOC emissions of at least 15%

in the area during the first 6 years after

enactment (i.e., by November 15, 1996).

The emission reductions needed to

achieve the 15% requirement must be

calculated using a 1990 anthropogenic

VOC emissions inventory as a baseline,

minus emissions that have been reduced

by: (1) The Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program (FMVCP) measures for

the control of motor vehicle exhaust or

evaporative emissions promulgated

before January 1, 1990; and (2) gasoline

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations

promulgated by November 15, 1990 (See

55 FR 23666, June 11, 1990). In

addition, the plan must account for net

growth in emissions within the

nonattainment area between 1990 and

1996.

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires

states with moderate and above areas to

adopt a contingency plan by November

15, 1993, which provides for specific

control measures to be implemented if

an area fails to achieve ROP

requirements or attain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard in the

time frames specified under the Act. In

addition, section 182(c)(9) of the Act

requires that contingency plans for

serious or above ozone nonattainment

areas to provide for specific measures to

be implemented if an area fails to meet

an applicable milestone under the Act.

These sections require that contingency

measures must be able to take effect

when a failure occurs without further

action by the State or the Administrator.

In Indiana, two ozone nonattainment

areas are subject to the 15% ROP and

contingency plans requirements: the

Lake and Porter Counties portion of the

Chicago severe ozone nonattainment

area, and the Clark and Floyd Counties

portion of the Louisville moderate

ozone nonattainment area. This

rulemaking action addresses only the

plans for Lake and Porter Counties;

Clark and Floyd Counties will be

addressed in a separate Federal

Register.

II. Indiana’s 15% ROP and Contingency

Plans Submittal

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing SIPs and SIP revisions for

submission to EPA. Section 110(a)(2)

and section 110(l) of the Act require that

each State’s SIP revision submitted

under the Act be adopted by the State

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. The State of Indiana submitted

a portion of the Lake and Porter

Counties 15% ROP and contingency

plan SIP revisions on January 13, 1994.

The SIP revisions were reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness shortly

after submittal, in accordance with the

completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR

Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as amended

by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991).

However, the submittal was deemed

incomplete because the plans had not

yet gone through public hearing and did

not include fully adopted rules for all of

the plans’ control measures. Indiana

held a public hearing on the plans on

March 29, 1994. A summary of

comments from that hearing and the

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management’s (IDEM) response was

submitted on July 5, 1994. IDEM sent a

supplemental submittal on June 26,

1995, which included fully adopted

rules for the Lake and Porter Counties

15% ROP and contingency plans. In a

July 17, 1995, letter to Indiana, the State

was notified that the SIP submittal was

deemed complete.

III. Criteria for 15% ROP and

Contingency Plans Approvals

The requirements for 15% ROP and

3% contingency plans are found in

section 172(c)(9), 182(b)(1), and

182(b)(9) of the Act, and the following

EPA guidance documents:

1. Procedures for Preparing Emissions

Projections, EPA–450/4–91–019,

Environmental Protection Agency, July

1991.

2. State Implementation Plans;

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed

rule (57 FR 13498), Federal Register,

April 16, 1992.

3. ‘‘November 15, 1992, Deliverables

for Reasonable Further Progress and

Modeling Emission Inventories,’’

memorandum from J. David Mobley,

Edwin L. Meyer, and G.T. Helms, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

August 7, 1992.

4. Guidance on the Adjusted Base

Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996

Target for the 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–92–005,

Environmental Protection Agency,

October 1992.

5. ‘‘Quantification of Rule

Effectiveness Improvements,’’

memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, October 1992.

6. Guidance for Growth Factors,

Projections, and Control Strategies for

the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,

EPA–452/R–93–002, March 1993.

7. ‘‘Correction to ‘Guidance on the

Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15845

and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent

Rate of Progress Plans’,’’ memorandum

from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

March 2, 1993.

8. ‘‘15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans,’’ memorandum from G.T. Helms,

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, March 16, 1993.

9. Guidance on the Relationship

Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean

Air Act, EPA–452/R–93–007,

Environmental Protection Agency, May

1993.

10. ‘‘Credit Toward the 15 Percent

Rate-of-Progress Reductions from

Federal Measures,’’ memorandum from

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, May

6, 1993.

11. Guidance on Preparing

Enforceable Regulations and

Compliance Programs for the 15 Percent

Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–93–

005, Environmental Protection Agency,

June 1993.

12. ‘‘Correction Errata to the 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance

Series,’’ memorandum from G.T. Helms,

Chief, Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, July 28, 1993.

13. ‘‘Early Implementation of

Contingency Measures for Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment

Areas,’’ memorandum from G.T. Helms,

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, August 13, 1993.

14. ‘‘Region III Questions on Emission

Projections for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans,’’ memorandum from

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

August 17, 1993.

15. ‘‘Guidance on Issues Related to 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,’’

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, Environmental

Protection Agency, August 23, 1993.

16. ‘‘Credit Toward the 15 Percent

Requirements from Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance Coatings,’’

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, September 10, 1993.

17. ‘‘Reclassification of Areas to

Nonattainment and 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans,’’ memorandum from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

September 20, 1993.

18. ‘‘Clarification of ‘Guidance for

Growth Factors, Projections and Control

Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans’,’’ memorandum from

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

October 6, 1993.

19. ‘‘Review and Rulemaking on 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,’’

memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, October 6, 1993.

20. ‘‘Questions and Answers from the

15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan

Workshop,’’ memorandum from G.T.

Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, October 29, 1993.

21. ‘‘Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance

on the 15 Percent Calculations,’’

memorandum from D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, October 29, 1993.

22. ‘‘Clarification of Issues Regarding

the Contingency Measures that are due

November 15, 1993 for Moderate and

Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’

memorandum from D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, November 8, 1993.

23. ‘‘Credit for 15 percent Rate-ofProgress Plan Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule,’’

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, December 9, 1993.

24. ‘‘Guidance on Projection of

Nonroad Inventories to Future Years,’’

memorandum from Philip A. Lorang,

Director, Emission Planning and

Strategies Division, Office of Air and

Radiation, Environmental Protection

Agency, February 4, 1994.

25. ‘‘Discussion at the Division

Directors Meeting on June 1 Concerning

the 15 Percent and 3 Percent

Calculations,’’ memorandum from G.T.

Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, June 2, 1994.

26. ‘‘Future Nonroad Emission

Reduction Credits for Court-Ordered

Nonroad Standards,’’ memorandum

from Philip A. Lorang, Director,

Emission Planning and Strategies

Division, Office of Air and Radiation,

Environmental Protection Agency,

November 28, 1994.

27. ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and

the Autobody Refinishing Rule,’’

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, November 29, 1994.

28. ‘‘Transmittal of Rule Effectiveness

Protocol for 1996 Demonstrations,’’

memorandum from Susan E. Bromm,

Director, Chemical, Commercial

Services and Municipal Division, Office

of Compliance, Environmental

Protection Agency, December 22, 1994.

29. ‘‘Future Nonroad Emission

Reduction Credits for Locomotives,’’

memorandum from Philip A. Lorang,

Director, Emission Planning and

Strategies Division, Office of Air and

Radiation, Environmental Protection

Agency, January 3, 1995.

30. ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule,’’

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, March 22, 1995.

31. ‘‘Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans—Additional Guidance,’’

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, May 5, 1995.

32. ‘‘Update on the credit for the 15

percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for

Reductions from the Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance Coatings Rule,’’

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, March 7, 1996.

33. ‘‘Date by which States Need to

Achieve all the Reductions Needed for

the 15% Plan from Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M) and Guidance for

Recalculation,’’ memorandum from

Margo Oge, Director, Office of Mobile

Sources, and John S. Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Environmental Protection

Agency, August 13, 1996.

34. ‘‘Modeling 15 Percent Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) Reduction(s)

from I/M in 1999: Supplemental

Guidance,’’ memorandum from Gay

MacGregor, Director, Regional and State

Programs Division, and Sally Shaver,

Director, Air Quality Strategies and

Standards Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, December 23, 1996.

35. ‘‘15% Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC) State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Approvals and the ‘As Soon As
15846 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the Act

require that nonattainment plan provisions include

a comprehensive, accurate inventory of actual

emissions which occurred in 1990 from all sources

of relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area.

This inventory provides an estimate of the amount

of VOC and oxides of nitrogen produced by

emission sources such as automobiles, powerplants

and the use of consumer solvents in the household.

Because the approval of such inventories is

necessary to an area’s 15% ROP plan and

attainment demonstration, the emission inventory

must be approved prior to or with the 15% ROP

plan submission.

Practicable’ Test,’’ memorandum from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, and

Richard B. Ossias, Deputy Associate

General Counsel, Division of Air and

Radiation, Office of General Counsel,

Environmental Protection Agency,

February 12, 1997.

36. ‘‘Sample City Analysis:

Comparison of Enhanced Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M) Reductions Versus

Other 15 Percent Rate of Progress (ROP)

Plan Measures,’’ E.H. Pechan, February

12, 1997.

For a 15% ROP plan SIP to be

approved, the plan must adequately

justify how much emission reduction is

needed to achieve the 15% emission

reduction by November 15, 1996, and

how the plan’s control strategy will

secure that reduction.

The procedure for calculating the

needed emission reduction is as follows:

(A) Calculate the ‘‘1990 ROP

inventory’’ by subtracting from the

area’s ‘‘1990 base year inventory’’

(required to be submitted under sections

172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the Act 1)

biogenic emissions, emissions outside of

the nonattainment area, and preenactment banked emission credits;

(B) Calculate the ‘‘1990 adjusted base

year inventory’’ by subtracting from the

1990 ROP inventory any emission

reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP

and 1990 RVP Federal regulations

which occur between 1990 and 1996;

(C) Calculate ‘‘15% of adjusted base

year emissions’’ by multiplying the 1990

adjusted base year inventory by 15%;

(D) Calculate the ‘‘total required

reductions by 1996’’ by adding emission

reductions from the 1990 FMVCP and

1990 RVP federal rules to the 15% of

adjusted base year emissions calculation

(as provided under section 182(b)(1)(D)

of the Act);

(E) Calculate the ‘‘1996 emissions

target level’’ by subtracting from the

1990 ROP base year inventory the total

required reductions by 1996;

(F) Calculate the ‘‘1996 projected

emission estimate’’ by a number of

methods, such as adding growth factors

to the 1990 adjusted base-year

inventory, or adding growth factors and

required emission reductions to the

1990 ROP inventory; and

(G) Calculate the ‘‘reduction required

by 1996 to achieve 15% net of growth’’

by subtracting the 1996 target emissions

level from the 1996 projected emissions

level.

In determining what control measures

a State can use in its 15% ROP plan

strategy, the Act provides under section

182(b)(1)(C) that emission reductions

from control measures are creditable to

the extent that they have actually

occurred before November 15, 1996. In

keeping with this requirement, the

General Preamble states that all credited

emission reductions must be real,

permanent, and enforceable, and that

regulations needed to implement the

plan’s control strategy must be adopted

and implemented by the State by

November 15, 1996.

As for the contingency plan, the

General Preamble states that the

contingency measures must provide

reductions of 3% of the emissions from

the 1990 adjusted base year inventory.

While all contingency measures must be

fully adopted rules or measures, the

State can use these measures in two

different ways. The State can use its

discretion to implement any

contingency measures before 1996.

Alternately, the State may decide not to

implement a measure until the area has

failed to secure the 15% emission

reduction, attain the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

ozone, or meet any other applicable

milestone under the Act. In that

situation, the reductions must be

achieved through triggered, prior

adopted rules within one year from the

date in which the failure has been

identified.

The EPA has reviewed the State’s

submittal for consistency with the

requirements of the Act and EPA

guidance. A summary of EPA’s analysis

is provided below.

IV. Analysis of Lake and Porter

Counties 15% ROP and Contingency

Plans

Indiana’s 15% ROP summary for Lake

and Porter Counties is provided in the

following table:

15% ROP SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

Lbs VOC/

day

CALCULATION OF REDUCTION NEEDS BY 1996

1990 Lake and Porter Counties Total VOC Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 424,721

1990 ROP Emissions (Anthropogenic only) ............................................................................................................................................ 381,841

1990–1996 Noncreditable Reductions (Reductions from 1990 RVP and Pre-1990 FMVCP Regulations) ............................................ 58,838

1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions (1990 ROP Emissions minus Noncreditable Reductions) ........................................................... 323,003

15% of Adjusted Base Year Emissions ................................................................................................................................................... 48,450

Total Required Emission Reductions by 1996 (15% of Adjusted Base Year Emissions plus Noncreditable Reductions) .................... 107,288

1996 Target Level (1990 ROP Emissions minus Total Required Emission Reductions by 1996) ......................................................... 274,553

1996 Projected Emissions (1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions plus Growth Factors) ....................................................................... 342,683

REDUCTION NEEDS BY 1996 TO ACHIEVE 15 PERCENT NET OF GROWTH (1996 Projected Emission minus 1996 Target

Level) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68,130

CREDITABLE REDUCTION FROM MANDATORY CONTROLS

Mobile Sources:

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program (326 IAC 13–1.1) .......................................................................... 6,817

Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart D) ......................................................................................... 14,905

Area Sources:

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery (326 IAC 8–4–6) ....................................................................................................................... 9,824

Federal Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings Rule .......................................................................................... 2,920

Point Sources:

Non-Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule (326 IAC 8–7) ..................... 4,559
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15847

15% ROP SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES—Continued

Lbs VOC/

day

SUBTOTAL—REDUCTIONS FROM MANDATORY CONTROLS ............................................................................................... 39,025

CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM NON MANDATORY CONTROLS

Point Sources:

Keil Chemical Agreed Order ............................................................................................................................................................. 5,327

Coke Oven Battery Shutdowns at Inland Steel Flat Products 2 (326 IAC 6–1–10.1(k)(5)) ............................................................. 22,850

Area Sources:

Residential Open Burning (326 IAC 4–1) ......................................................................................................................................... 929

SUBTOTAL—REDUCTION FROM NON MANDATORY CONTROLS ........................................................................................ 29,106

TOTAL CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM 15% ROP PLAN .................................................................................................. 68,130

2Total reductions from the coke oven battery closures are 23,609 lbs VOC/day. Reductions not counted toward the 15% ROP plan are being

used as a contingency measure.

A. Calculation of the 1990 Adjusted

Base Year Emission Inventory

To determine the 1990 adjusted base

year inventory, Indiana used the 1990

base year emission inventory approved

by EPA on January 4, 1995 (60 FR 375),

which was found to meet the

requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and

182(a)(1) of the Act for Lake and Porter

Counties. Total VOC emissions

estimated from this inventory are

424,721 lbs VOC/day. Indiana

subtracted biogenic emissions and

emissions from outside Lake and Porter

Counties from the 1990 base year

inventory to determine that the 1990

ROP inventory level is 381,841 lbs VOC/

day. No pre-enactment banked emission

credit was included in this inventory.

Indiana used EPA’s Mobile Source

Emissions Model (MOBILE)5a to

calculate the emission reductions from

the pre-1990 FMVCP and 1990 RVP

regulations; these reductions were

subtracted from the 1990 ROP inventory

level to find the 1990 adjusted base year

inventory level of 323,003 lbs VOC/day.

Indiana’s documentation includes the

actual 1990 motor vehicle emissions

using 1990 vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

and MOBILE5a emission factors, and

the adjusted emissions using 1990 VMT

and the MOBILE5a emission factors in

calendar year 1996 with the appropriate

RVP for the nonattainment area as

mandated by EPA. The plan includes

adequate documentation showing how

the MOBILE5a model was run to

calculate the expected emission

reductions from FMVCP and RVP.

B. 1996 ROP Target Emission Level

To calculate the 1996 target emission

level for Lake and Porter Counties,

Indiana first multiplied the 1990

adjusted base year inventory by 0.15 to

determine that the 15% required

emission reduction by 1996 is 48,450

lbs VOC/day. Then, 58,838 lbs VOC/day

of reductions from non-creditable

control measures (pre-1990 FMVCP and

1990 RVP) were added to the 15%

required reduction to find that the total

required reductions by 1996 is 107,288

lbs VOC/day. Finally, Indiana

subtracted the 1996 total required

emission reductions from the 1990 ROP

emission inventory to determine that

the 1996 emission target level for Lake

and Porter Counties is 274,553 lbs VOC/

day.

The 15% ROP plan submittal

adequately documents the calculations

used to determine the Lake and Porter

Counties target level by showing each

step, discussing any assumptions made,

and stating the origin of the numbers

used in the calculations.

C. Projected Emission Inventory

To determine the 1996 projected

emission inventory, Indiana has

included in the 15% ROP plan the

growth factors used together with

documentation for the assumptions

made. The point, area, and non-road

mobile source emission inventories

were projected using either source

supplied data, population forecasts,

historical data, or, where historical data

were unavailable or not suitable to

project, the U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA), regional growth data

were used. The on-road mobile source

emission inventory was projected using

MOBILE5a. The State’s calculations for

growth in the on-road mobile, off-road

mobile, industrial, and area source

sectors is 10,180 lbs VOC/day, 1,298 lbs

VOC/day, 4,692 lbs VOC/day, and 3,510

lbs VOC/day, respectively, for a total of

19,680 lbs VOC/day. These growth

estimates were calculated in a manner

consistent with EPA’s guidance

documents. The projected emissions

were added to the 1990 adjusted baseyear inventory to determine that the

1990 projected emission inventory level

is 342,683 lbs VOC/day.

D. Contingency Measure Provisions

Indiana’s contingency plan summary

for Lake and Porter Counties is shown

in the following table:

CONTINGENCY MEASURE SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

Lbs VOC/

day

CALCULATION OF CONTINGENCY MEASURE REDUCTION NEEDED

1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions ...................................................................................................................................................... 342,683

3 Percent of 1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 9,690

CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Remaining Coke Oven Battery Shutdowns at Inland Steel (326 IAC 6–1–10.1(k)(5)) ........................................................................... 759

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill Rule (326 IAC 8–8) .................................................................................................................... 1,132

Coke Oven National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 3 (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L) ............................... 1,226

Automobile Refinishing Rule (326 IAC 8–10) .......................................................................................................................................... 4,679
15848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

CONTINGENCY MEASURE SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES—Continued

Lbs VOC/

day

Volatile Organic Liquid (VOL) Storage Rule (326 IAC 8–9) .................................................................................................................... 2,620

TOTAL CREDITABLE CONTINGENCY REDUCTIONS .................................................................................................................. 10,416

3Although the purpose of NESHAP rules are to control the emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), pursuant to section 112 of Title III of

the Act, much of the HAPs controlled under the coke oven NESHAP are also VOC.

E. Creditable Reductions From Control

Measures

From the calculation of the 1996

target emission level and 1996 projected

emission level, Indiana must reduce

emissions in Lake and Porter Counties

by 68,130 lbs VOC/day, to secure the

15% ROP reduction, and an additional

9,690 lbs VOC/day, to secure the

required 3% contingency reduction. The

Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and

3% contingency plans do meet this

requirement. The total creditable

emission reduction achieved by the

15% ROP and 3% contingency plans are

68,130 lbs VOC/day, and 10,416 lbs

VOC/day, respectively. Emission

reductions not needed to meet the 3%

contingency requirement will be

applied toward achieving post-1996

ROP reductions, leading to attainment

of the ozone air quality standard.

The SIP submittal includes

documentation indicating the sources or

source categories which are expected to

be affected by each control measure, the

sources’ projected 1996 emissions

without controls, and the assumptions

used to estimate how much the sources’

1996 emissions would be reduced by

each control measure. These

assumptions were derived primarily

from Midwest Research Institute’s April

30, 1993, document entitled ‘‘Support

Document for Indiana’s Lake and Porter

Nonattainment Area 1996 Rate of

Progress Plan,’’ which was contracted

by EPA to assist Indiana in developing

the 15% ROP and contingency plans. A

review of the emission reduction credit

taken for each control measure follows:

Enhanced I/M Program

Of the 15% ROP plans originally

submitted to EPA, most contain

enhanced I/M programs because they

achieve more VOC emission reductions

than most, if not all other, control

strategies. However, because most states

experienced substantial difficulties

implementing enhanced I/M programs,

only a few States are currently actually

testing cars using the original enhanced

I/M protocol.

On September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029),

EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced

I/M rule allowing States significant

flexibility in designing I/M programs

appropriate for their needs. Further,

Congress enacted the National Highway

Systems Designation Act of 1995

(NHSDA), which provides States with

more flexibility in determining the

design of enhanced I/M programs. The

substantial amount of time needed by

States to re-design enhanced I/M

programs in accordance with the final

enhanced I/M rules and/or the guidance

contained within the NHSDA, to secure

State legislative approval when

necessary, and set up the infrastructure

to perform the testing program has

precluded States from obtaining

emission reductions from enhanced I/M

by November 15, 1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many

States on enhanced I/M programs to

help satisfy 15% ROP plan

requirements, and the recent NHSDA

and regulatory changes regarding

enhanced I/M programs, EPA has

recognized that it is not possible for

many States to achieve the portion of

the 15% ROP reductions that are

attributed to enhanced I/M by

November 15, 1996. Under these

circumstances, disapproval of the 15%

ROP plan SIPs would serve no purpose.

Consequently, under certain

circumstances, EPA will allow States

that pursue re-design of enhanced I/M

programs to receive emission reduction

credit from these programs in their 15%

ROP plans, even though the emission

reductions from the I/M program will

occur after November 15, 1996.

Specifically, the EPA will approve

15% ROP SIPs if the emission

reductions from the revised, enhanced I/

M programs, as well as from the other

15% ROP plan measures, will achieve

the 15% level as soon after November

15, 1996, as practicable. To make this

‘‘as soon as practicable’’ determination,

the EPA must determine that the 15%

ROP plan contains all VOC control

strategies that are practicable for the

nonattainment area in question and that

meaningfully accelerate the date by

which the 15% level is achieved. The

EPA does not believe that measures

meaningfully accelerate the 15% date if

they provide only an insignificant

amount of reductions.

Indiana’s enhanced I/M program for

Lake and Porter Counties was approved

by EPA on March 19, 1996 (61 FR

11142), and the State began testing

vehicles under the new program on

January 1, 1997. A single contractor,

Envirotest, Inc., operates a test-only

centralized network for inspections and

re-inspection. The Indiana I/M program

requires coverage of all 1976 and newer

gasoline powered light duty passenger

cars and light duty trucks up to 9,000

pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

(GVWR). All applicable 1981 and newer

vehicles will be subject to a transient,

mass emissions tailpipe test that

includes the purge and pressure test. All

applicable 1976 through 1980 vehicles

will be subject to a BAR90 single-speed

idle test that includes the pressure test.

The I/M contractor has acquired all the

emission test sites required under the

State I/M contract, and all the test

stations required have been constructed.

EPA has analyzed Indiana’s enhanced

I/M program to predict when the

emission reductions claimed in the Lake

and Porter Counties 15% ROP plan for

the program will actually be secured.

This analysis was based on the

methodology specified in EPA’s policy

memoranda, ‘‘Date by Which States

Need to Achieve all the Reductions

Needed for the 15% Plan from I/M and

Guidance for Recalculation,’’ August 13,

1996, and ‘‘Modeling 15% VOC

Reduction(s) from I/M in 1999—

Supplemental Guidance,’’ December 23,

1996. MOBILE5b runs were used to

evaluate the credit using inputs that

reflect actual program startup. Some of

the input parameters of the modeling

included: a January 1, 1997, program

start date; start-up cutpoints as

recommended by EPA; and expected

evaporative test procedures available at

start-up. The State has taken credit in

the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP

plan for 6,817 lbs VOC/day, or 3.41 tons

per day reductions from enhanced I/M.

Based on EPA’s analysis, the emission

reduction claimed will be secured by

November 1999. (See EPA’s August 13,

1996, policy memorandum titled ‘‘Date

by Which States Need to Achieve all the

Reductions Needed for the 15% Plan

from I/M and Guidance for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15849

4RACT is the lowest emission limitation that a

particular source is capable of meeting by the

application of control technology that is reasonably

available, considering technological and economic

feasibility. CTGs are EPA documents which provide

recommendations on what EPA considers the

presumptive norm for RACT for particular

industries. Indiana was required to adopt the NonCTG RACT rule by section 182(b)(2) of the Act.

Recalculation,’’ for further discussion

on the November 1999 date).

To determine whether there are other

available potential control measures

which can meaningfully accelerate the

date by which 15% emission reduction

in Lake and Porter Counties can be

achieved, EPA compared the Lake and

Porter Counties 15% ROP and

contingency plans with control

measures included in 15% ROP plans

nation-wide, which are listed in EPA’s

report, ‘‘Sample City Analysis:

Comparison of Enhanced I/M

Reductions Versus other 15 Percent ROP

Plan Measures,’’ referenced in EPA’s

policy document ‘‘15% VOC SIP

Approvals and the ‘As Soon As

Practicable’ Test,’’ February 12, 1997.

Based upon the report, EPA believes

that there are no other potential control

measures beyond those already

included in the Lake and Porter

Counties 15% ROP and contingency

plans which can secure a significant

amount of emission reduction before

November 1999.

Because Indiana’s enhanced I/M

program will secure emission

reductions claimed under the Lake and

Porter Counties 15% ROP plan by

November 1999, and because there are

no other potential control measures

which can meaningfully accelerate the

achievement of 15% reduction in the

counties before November 1999, the

EPA finds that the Lake and Porter

Counties 15% ROP plan does secure

15% emission reductions as soon as

practicable. On this basis, the emission

reduction claimed for the Lake and

Porter Counties enhanced I/M program

under the 15% ROP plan is approvable.

Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program

The federal reformulated gasoline

program (40 CFR part 80, subpart D)

requires gasoline providers in Lake and

Porter Counties to sell only gasoline

which meets certain blending

requirements to reduce pollution. The

VOC reduction from reformulated

gasoline was determined using the

MOBILE5a model to estimate the

difference between 1996 highway

mobile source emissions at RVP 9.0, the

level of control upon gasoline in Lake

and Porter Counties before the

reformulated gasoline requirement, and

1996 highway mobile source emissions

with reformulated gasoline. Indiana has

credited a 14,905 lbs/day emission

reduction from this program, which is

acceptable.

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Rule

Indiana’s Stage II rule (326 IAC 8–4–

6) requires facilities that sell more than

10,000 gallons of gasoline per month to

operate Stage II vapor recovery systems

certified to have a control effectiveness

of at least 95%. Indiana has estimated

that the rule has a 84% program in-use

efficiency, accounting for annual

inspection program effects and the

exemption of facilities with a monthly

gasoline throughput of less than 10,000

gallons. Indiana has credited a 9,824 lbs

VOC/day emission reduction from this

rule, which is acceptable.

Federal AIM Coatings Rule

Pursuant to section 183(e) of the Act,

EPA proposed on June 25, 1996 (61 FR

32729), a national rule requiring

manufacturers of AIM coatings to meet

VOC content limitations. The March 7,

1996, EPA memorandum ‘‘Update on

the Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance Coatings Rule’’ allows

States to take credit for a 20% reduction

in AIM coating emissions, even though

promulgation of the rule has been

delayed. Based on this policy, Indiana

has taken an emission reduction credit

of 2,920 lbs VOC/day, which is

acceptable.

Non-CTG RACT Rule

Indiana’s Non-CTG RACT rule (326

IAC 8–7) requires VOC controls on

sources which have the potential to emit

25 tons of VOC emissions per year, and

are not already covered under an

existing CTG or part of a post-1990 CTG

category. 4 Sources subject to this rule

are allowed to demonstrate compliance

by choosing among any one of the

following three available options: (1)

achieve an overall VOC reduction in

baseline actual emissions of 98% by the

addition of add-on controls or

documented reduction in VOCcontaining materials used; (2) achieve a

level of reduction equal to 81% of

baseline actual emission by the same

means as stated above, where it is

demonstrated that a 98% reduction in

source emissions is not achievable; or

(3) achieve an alternative overall

emission reduction by the application of

RACT as determined by the State and

EPA. Indiana estimates that the rule’s

overall control efficiency is 81%, and

has a rule effectiveness of 80%. Indiana

has credited 4,559 lbs VOC/day in

emission reductions from this rule,

which is acceptable.

Keil Chemical Agreed Order

Keil Chemical is required under a July

29, 1994, agreed order (Cause No. A–

2250) to limit emissions from its PyroChek stack to 15 tons of VOC/year by

operating a carbon adsorption add-on

control device. Indiana credits this

device to reduce emissions by 5,327 lbs

VOC/day, which is acceptable.

Coke Oven Battery Shutdowns at Inland

Steel Flat Products

Inland Steel is required under

Indiana’s Particulate Matter rule 326

IAC 6–1–10.1(k)(5) to shut down

numbers 6 through 11 coke batteries

before 1996. The 1990 base-year

inventory emissions from these coke

batteries, 23,609 lbs VOC/day, are being

credited as emission reductions. Indiana

is using 22,850 lbs VOC/day towards the

15% ROP plan, and 759 lbs VOC/day as

a contingency measure. These

reductions are acceptable.

Residential Open Burning Rule

Under Indiana’s rule 326 IAC 4–1,

residential open burning is banned in

Lake and Porter Counties. Indiana

estimates 80% emission reduction and

80% rule effectiveness from this rule.

An emissions reduction credit of 929 lbs

VOC/day from the rule is acceptable.

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Rule

The State rule 326 IAC 8–8 applies to

new and existing municipal solid waste

landfills emitting greater than 55 tons of

non-methane organic compounds per

year and with a minimum design

capacity of 100,000 megagrams of solid

waste. The rule requires the operation of

a landfill gas collection system and

combustion device. Based on a

destruction efficiency of 98% and

collection efficiencies ranging from 50%

to 60%, Indiana estimates that an

overall VOC emission control efficiency

of 49% may be achieved, with 80% rule

effectiveness. Indiana has credited an

emission reduction of 1,132 lbs VOC/

day from this rule, which is acceptable.

Coke Oven NESHAP

This federal rule (40 CFR part 63,

subpart L) applies to all by-product coke

ovens and nonrecovery coke ovens as

stipulated in the rule. The hazardous air

pollutants regulated under the rule are

also VOC. The rule is estimated to have

a 15% and 52% control efficiency for

topside leaks and charging, respectively,

along with 80% rule effectiveness. An

emission reduction of 1,226 lbs VOC/

day has been credited from this rule,

which is acceptable.
15850 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Automobile Refinishing Rule

The State rule 326 IAC 8–10 requires

automobile and mobile equipment

refinishing shops to use lower VOC

coatings, less-emitting spray-gun and

spray-gun cleaning equipment, and

improved work practices to reduce

VOC. To improve rule effectiveness, this

rule also requires refinishing coating

suppliers in the area to sell only

coatings which meet the VOC limits

required in the rule. In addition to

documentation contained in the

submittal, Indiana submitted

supplemental documentation which

indicates that an overall 77.8% emission

reduction can be expected from all the

control measures required by this rule,

with 100% rule effectiveness. This

documentation has been included in the

docket for this rulemaking. Indiana has

taken an emission reduction credit of

4,679 lbs VOC/day from this rule, which

is acceptable.

VOL Storage Rule

The State rule 326 IAC 8–9 requires

special roof design and sealing

requirements for certain VOL storage

vessels. Indiana is only taking credit

from controls on external floating roof

tanks and fixed roof tanks, assuming

96% and 50% control efficiency,

respectively, as contingency measures.

The emission credit taken for the VOL

storage rule, 2,620 lbs VOC/day, is

acceptable.

The Lake and Porter Counties 15%

ROP and contingency plans contain

adequate documentation on how the

expected emission reductions from the

control measures were calculated. These

expected reductions are approvable.

F. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 57 FR

13556). The EPA criteria addressing the

enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions

were stated in a September 23, 1987

memorandum (with attachments) from

the Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation (see 57 FR 13541).

Nonattainment area plan provisions

must also contain a program that

provides for enforcement of the control

measures and other elements in the SIP

[see section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act].

The control measures included in the

Lake and Porter 15% ROP and

contingency plans have been fully

adopted by Indiana and have been

submitted to EPA as revisions to the

State’s ozone SIP. The EPA has

independently reviewed each control

measure to determine conformance with

SIP requirements under section 110 and

part D of the Act, and the overall

enforceability of the measure’s

requirements. Rulemaking action on

each control measure is as follows:

Control measure Date of EPA approval

Enhanced I/M Program (326 IAC 13–1.1) ................................................ March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142).

Reformulated Gasoline (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart D) ............................. Federal regulation promulgated February 16, 1994, (59 FR 7716).

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery (326 IAC 8–4–6) ............................... April 28, 1994 (59 FR 21942).

Federal AIM Coatings Rule ...................................................................... Proposed federal regulation for which Indiana can take credit. (See

memorandum dated March 7, 1996, from John Seitz, Director, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Regional Air Division Directors.)

Non-CTG RACT (326 IAC 8–7) ................................................................ July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34857).

Keil Chemical July 29, 1994, Agreed Order ............................................. Date of EPA approval action is date of today’s FEDERAL REGISTER. See

discussion below.

Residential Open Burning Ban (326 IAC 4–1) ......................................... February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3581).

Coke Oven Battery Shutdown (326 IAC 6–1–10.1(k)(5)) ........................ June 15, 1995 (60 FR 31412).

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (326 IAC 8–8) ........................................ January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2591).

Coke Oven NESHAP (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart L) ................................. Federal regulation promulgated October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57911).

Auto Refinishing (326 IAC 8–10) .............................................................. June 13, 1996 (61 FR 29965).

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (326 IAC 8–9) ............................. January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2593).

The agreed order for Keil Chemical is

being approved in today’s direct final

rulemaking action. A discussion of this

approval is included in part V of this

rulemaking action.

G. Transportation Conformity 1996

Mobile Source Emissions Budget

Section 176(c) requires States to

submit SIP revisions establishing the

State’s criteria and procedures for

assessing the conformity of federal

actions (transportation and general) to

the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or

reducing the severity and number of

violations of the NAAQS and achieving

expeditious attainment of such

standards, and that such activities will

not: (1) Cause or contribute to any new

violation of any standard in any area, (2)

increase the frequency or severity of any

existing violation of any standard in any

area, or (3) delay timely attainment of

any standard or any required interim

emission reductions or other milestones

in any area. To assure conformity with

the SIP, conformity analyses for

transportation projects must take into

account the amount of on-road mobile

source emissions that can be emitted in

accordance with SIP emission reduction

milestones. For the purposes of EPA

transportation conformity

determinations, the 1996 emission level

for on-road mobile sources that is

achieved from the 15% ROP plan,

constitutes the 1996 VOC mobile source

emission budget for Lake and Porter

Counties. This level, which is derived

from MOBILE5a using 1996 projected

on-road mobile source emissions with

reformulated gasoline and enhanced I/

M, is 50,015 lbs/day. Therefore, final

approval of the 15% ROP plan also

approves the 1996 mobile source VOC

emission budget.

For years after 1996, conformity

determinations addressing VOCs must

demonstrate consistency with this plan

revision’s motor vehicle emissions

budget, and satisfaction of the build/nobuild test. Final approval of this 15%

ROP plan would not eliminate the need

for a build/no-build test for oxides of

nitrogen.

H. Concluding Statement on 15% ROP

and Contingency Plans

The EPA has reviewed the Lake and

Porter Counties 15% ROP and

contingency plans SIP revisions

submitted to EPA as described above,

and finds that the plans satisfy the

requirements of sections 172(c)(9),

182(b)(1), and 182(c)(9) of the Act, as

well as EPA guidance for such plans.

Therefore, the EPA, in this action, is

approving these plans as revisions to the

Indiana ozone SIP.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15851

V. Analysis of Keil Chemical Agreed

Order

A July 29, 1994, agreed order (Cause

No. A–2250) between IDEM and Keil

Chemical was included in the Lake and

Porter Counties 15% ROP and

contingency plans SIP submittal as a

control measure for the 15% ROP plan.

Keil Chemical operates a Pyro-Chek

manufacturing process in Hammond,

Lake County, Indiana. The 1990 plant

VOC emissions from the Pyro-Chek

stack were estimated to be 5,060 lbs

VOC/day, and, if left uncontrolled, were

projected to be approximately 5,464 lbs

VOC/day in 1996. Pursuant to the

agreed order with IDEM, Keil Chemical

installed and began operation of a

carbon adsorption system to limit VOC

emissions from the Pyro-Chek process

stack to 15 tons of VOC per year. The

agreed order also requires Keil Chemical

to implement a fugitive emission control

program and limits total emissions from

the plant to 25 tons of VOC per year. In

today’s action, EPA is approving the

July 29, 1994, Agreed Order as a

revision to the Indiana ozone SIP. As a

result of the control placed on the PyroChek stack, Indiana is claiming 5,327

lbs VOC/day in emissions reductions

from the stack.

VI. Final Rulemaking Action

The EPA approves Indiana’s 15%

ROP plan for Lake and Porter Counties,

3% contingency plan for Lake and

Porter Counties, and the Keil Chemical

Agreed Order, as revisions to the SIP.

For transportation conformity purposes,

final approval of the 15% ROP plan also

approves the 1996 mobile source

emission budget of 50,015 lbs VOC/day.

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

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective on June 2, 1997

unless, by May 5, 1997, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent rulemaking that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. 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 June 2, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary D.

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq., EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

sections 603 and 604. Alternatively,

EPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the 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 impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

undertake various actions in association

with 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. 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 the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a major rule as defined by section

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by June 2, 1997. 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,

Intergovernmental relations,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Dated: February 19, 1997.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(112) to read as

follows:
15852 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(112) On June 26, 1995, Indiana

submitted an agreed order with Keil

Chemical Division, Ferro Corporation

(Keil Chemical) requiring volatile

organic compound emission control at

Keil Chemical’s Pyro-Chek

manufacturing process, located in

Hammond, Lake County, Indiana.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Agreed

Order of the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management, Cause No.

A–2250, adopted and effective, July 29,

1994.

3. Section 52.777 is amended by

adding paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as

follows:

§ 52.777 Control strategy: Photochemical

oxidants (hydrocarbon).

* * * * *

(k) On June 26, 1995, Indiana

submitted a 15 percent rate-of-progress

plan for the Lake and Porter Counties

portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County ozone nonattainment area. This

plan satisfies the counties’ requirements

under section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990.

(l) On June 26, 1995, Indiana

submitted a 3 percent contingency plan

for the Lake and Porter Counties portion

of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area. This plan satisfies

the counties’ requirements under

section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990.

[FR Doc. 97–8383 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 1

[GC Docket No. 95–21; FCC 97–92]

Ex Parte Presentations in Commission

Proceedings

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission amends its

regulations concerning ex parte

presentations in Commission

proceedings. The new rules simplify the

determination in particular proceedings

of whether ex parte presentations are

permissible and whether they must be

disclosed. The proposed rules also

modify the Commission’s ‘‘Sunshine

period prohibition.’’ Certain other minor

amendments of the rules are made. The

intended effect of the amendments is to

make the rules simpler and easier to

comply with, to enhance the fairness of

the Commission’s processes, and to

facilitate the public’s ability to

communicate with the Commission.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Senzel, Office of General

Counsel (202) 418–1760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, GC Docket No. 95–21,

adopted on March 13, 1997, and

released March 19, 1997. The full text

of the report and order is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington D.C. The complete text may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., Suite 140, 2100 M Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20037, telephone

(202) 857–3800.

Summary of Report and Order

1. In this report and order, the

Commission revises its rules governing

ex parte presentations in Commission

proceedings. The revision is intended to

make the rules simpler and clearer, and

thus more effective in ensuring fairness

in Commission proceedings. The

Commission stresses that the ex parte

rules are important and that full

compliance is expected.

2. The Commission revises its system

for specifying whether proceedings are

‘‘restricted,’’ ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ or

‘‘exempt,’’ which determine how ex

parte presentations are treated in that

proceeding subject to specific

exceptions. (An ex parte presentation is

a communication to a Commission

decisionmaker concerning the outcome

or merits of a proceeding which—if

written—is not served on all parties

and—if oral—is made without notice

and the opportunity for all parties to be

present.) In restricted proceedings, ex

parte presentations are prohibited. In

permit-but-disclose proceedings, ex

parte presentations are permitted but

must be disclosed on the record of the

proceeding. In exempt proceedings, ex

parte presentations may be made

without limitation. The revised rules

adopt a simplified system for

determining the status of a proceeding.

3. Under this system, all proceedings

not specifically designated as exempt or

permit-but-disclose (either by the rules

or by order or public notice in an

individual proceeding) are restricted

from the point that someone becomes a

‘‘party’’ to the proceeding. Thus, the

extent of the restriction is governed by

the definition of ‘‘party.’’ If there is only

a single ‘‘party’’ (as defined in the ex

parte rules) in a restricted proceeding,

the Commission and the party may

freely make presentations to each other

because there is no other party to be

served or with a right to be present. If

there are additional parties, then those

parties must be served or be given an

opportunity to be present. Under the

rules, parties include: (1) any person

who files an application, waiver request,

petition, motion, request for a

declaratory ruling, or other filing

seeking affirmative relief (including a

Freedom of Information Act request),

and any person who files a written

submission referencing and regarding

such pending filing which is served on

the filer, or, in the case of an

application, any person filing a

mutually exclusive application; (2) any

person who files a complaint which is

served on the subject of the complaint

or which is a formal complaint under 47

U.S.C. § 208 and § 1.721 of our rules,

and the person who is the subject of

such a complaint; (3) any person who

files a petition to revoke a license or

other authorization or a petition for an

order to show cause and the licensee or

entity who is the subject of the petition;

(4) the subject of an order to show

cause, hearing designation order, notice

of apparent liability, or similar notice or

order, or petition for such notice or

order, or any other person who has

otherwise been given formal party status

in a proceeding; and (5) in a rulemaking

proceeding (other than a broadcast

allotment proceeding) or a proceeding

before a Joint Board or before the

Commission to consider the

recommendation of a Joint Board, the

general public. To be deemed a party, a

person must make the relevant filing

with the Secretary, the relevant Bureau

or Office, or the Commission as a whole.

Written submissions made only to the

Chairman or an individual

Commissioner will not confer party

status since such filings do not

demonstrate the requisite intent or

formality for party status.

4. A few matters will continue to be

expressly classified as exempt. These

include (1) notice of inquiry

proceedings, (2) petitions for

rulemaking, (3) tariff proceedings before

they are set for investigation, and (4)

proceedings involving complaints

which are not served on the target of the

complaint, are informal § 208

complaints, or are cable rate complaints

not filed on the standard complaint

form.

5. Other proceedings are classified as

permit-but-disclose (a term replacing

the former term ‘‘nonrestricted). These