78720 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1). 

■ 2. Revise § 207.340 to read as follows: 

§ 207.340 Reservoirs at headwaters of the 

Mississippi River; use and administration. 

(a) Description. These reservoirs 

include Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake, 

Pokegama, Sandy Lake, Pine River and 

Gull Lake. 

(b) Penalties. The River and Harbor 

Act approved August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 

419, 33 U.S.C. 601) includes the 

following provisions as to the 

administration of the headwater 

reservoirs: 

And it shall be the duty of the 

Secretary of War to prescribe such rules 

and regulations in respect to the use and 

administration of said reservoirs as, in 

his judgment, the public interest and 

necessity may require; which rules and 

regulations shall be posted in some 

conspicuous place or places for the 

information of the public. And any 

person knowingly and willfully 

violating such rules and regulations 

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 

five hundred dollars, or imprisonment 

not exceeding six months, the same to 

be enforced by prosecution in any 

district court of the United States within 

whose territorial jurisdiction such 

offense may have been committed. 

(c) Previous regulations now revoked. 

In accordance with the above act, the 

Secretary of War prescribed regulations 

for the use and administration of the 

reservoirs at the headwaters of the 

Mississippi River under date of 

February 11, 1931, which together with 

all subsequent amendments are hereby 

revoked and the following substituted 

therefor. 

(d) Authority of officer in charge of 

the reservoirs. The accumulation of 

water in, and discharge of water from 

the reservoirs, including that from one 

reservoir to another, shall be under the 

direction of the U.S. District Engineer, 

St. Paul, Minnesota, and of his 

authorized agents subject to the 

following restrictions and 

considerations: 

(1) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, the discharge 

from any reservoir may be varied at any 

time as required to permit inspection of, 

or repairs to, the dams, dikes or their 

appurtenances, or to prevent damage to 

lands or structures above or below the 

dams. 

(2) During the season of navigation on 

the upper Mississippi River, the volume 

of water discharged from the reservoirs 

shall be so regulated by the officer in 

charge as to maintain as nearly as 

practicable, until navigation closes, a 

sufficient stage of water in the navigable 

reaches of the upper Mississippi and in 

those of any tributary thereto that may 

be navigated and on which a reservoir 

is located. 

(e) Passage of logs and other floating 

bodies. Logs and other floating bodies 

may be sluiced or locked through the 

dams, but prior authority for the 

sluicing of logs must be obtained from 

the District Engineer when this 

operation necessitates a material change 

in discharge. 

(f) Obstructions to flow of water. No 

person shall place floating bodies in a 

stream or pond above or below a 

reservoir dam when, in the opinion of 

the officer in charge, such act would 

prevent the necessary flow of water to 

or from such dam, or in any way injure 

the dam and its appurtenances, its dikes 

and embankments; and should floating 

bodies lying above or below a dam 

constitute at any time an obstruction or 

menace as beforesaid, the owners of said 

floating bodies will be required to 

remove them immediately. 

(g) Trespass. No one shall trespass on 

any reservoir dam, dike, embankment or 

upon any property pertaining thereto. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31078 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Deferral of Compliance Date: FullService Intelligent Mail Barcode 

Requirement To Qualify for 

Automation Prices 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule; partial deferral of 

compliance date. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice that it is deferring the previouslyannounced compliance date of January 

26, 2014, for mailers to use full-service 

Intelligent Mail® to qualify for 

automation prices when mailing FirstClass Mail®, Standard Mail®; 

Periodicals®, and Bound Printed 

Matter® mailpieces. 

DATES: The compliance date of the 

relevant portions of the final rule 

published April 18, 2013 (78 FR 23137) 

is delayed indefinitely. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lizbeth J. Dobbins at 202–268–3781. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Order 

No. 1890 (November 21, 2013), the 

Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) 

determined that the price changes 

proposed in Docket No. R2013–10 could 

take effect as scheduled only if the 

Postal Service elected to defer the 

requirement for mailers to use fullservice Intelligent Mail to qualify for 

automation prices. 

Consistent with this Order, the United 

States Postal Service® hereby gives 

notice that the January 26, 2014, 

deadline to comply with the full-service 

Intelligent Mail requirements to qualify 

for automation prices, previously 

published on April 18, 2013, in a final 

rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 

23137–23149), is deferred until further 

notice. Specifically, this deferral applies 

to the requirements specified in DMM 

233.5.1 (First-Class commercial letters 

and cards); DMM 243.6.1.2, 243.6.4.1, 

243.6.5.1, and 243.7.1 (Standard Mail 

letters); DMM 333.5.1 (First-Class 

automation flats); DMM 343.7.1 

(Standard Mail automation flats); DMM 

363.4.1 and 363.6.1 (Bound Printed 

Matter flats); DMM 705.24.1 (advanced 

preparation and special postage 

payment systems); and DMM 707.13.4, 

707.14.1, and 707.14.2 (Periodicals). 

See, 78 FR 23146–23148. 

All other requirements that were 

published in the Federal Register (78 

FR 23137–23149) will be implemented 

on January 26, 2014. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30705 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0965; FRL–9904–71– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns 

Harbor 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2009, 

Indiana submitted a request for a 

revision to its sulfur dioxide (SO2) state 

implementation plan (SIP) for the 

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC 

(ArcelorMittal) facility in Porter County, 

Indiana. This revision would remove 

the SO2 emission limit for the blast 

furnace gas flare at the facility. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed to disapprove this requested 

revision on March 20, 2013. The EPA is 

addressing comments and finalizing the 

disapproval action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 27, 2014. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 78721 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0965. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Mary 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–5954 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, 

Portanova.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What comments were received, and what 

is EPA’s response? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On December 10, 2009, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request for revision of its SO2 SIP. This 

revision would amend 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 7–4–14, 

Porter County SO2 Emission 

Limitations, by removing the SO2 limit 

for the blast furnace flare at the 

ArcelorMittal steel mill. To be 

approved, this SIP revision request must 

comply with section 110(l) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), which states that the 

Administrator shall not approve a SIP 

revision if it would interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS), reasonable further progress, 

and any other applicable requirements. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

After reviewing the state’s submittal, 

EPA determined that the proposed SIP 

revision does not meet the requirements 

of CAA section 110(l). Removal of the 

flare limit eliminates the only 

requirement which directly addresses 

the sulfur content of the blast furnace 

gas which ArcelorMittal uses to fuel 

other combustion units in the facility. 

Although blast furnace gas is considered 

to be a low-sulfur fuel, the state’s 

submittal indicates that the sulfur 

content of blast furnace gas can vary, 

and the proposed SIP revision would 

allow ArcelorMittal’s blast furnace gas 

to increase in sulfur content without 

limit. This would be inconsistent with 

the state’s prior attainment 

demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS. 

The state has not fully evaluated the 

ambient impact of new operating 

scenarios in which ArcelorMittal 

generates and uses higher-sulfur blast 

furnace gas. It did not provide sufficient 

information for EPA to confirm the 

assertion that the SIP emission limits 

would continue to be met, with or 

without the use of the flare, under 

maximum blast furnace capacity 

without limitations on blast furnace gas 

sulfur content. Since the state’s SIP 

submittal did not meet the requirements 

of CAA section 110(l), EPA published a 

notice of proposed disapproval for this 

SIP revision request on March 20, 2013 

(78 FR 17157). EPA received four letters 

commenting on the proposed 

disapproval. 

II. What comments were received, and 

what is EPA’s response? 

EPA received two comments in 

support of the proposed disapproval, 

from an Indiana public interest group 

(March 22, 2013) and a private citizen 

(April 18, 2013). Both IDEM and 

ArcelorMittal disagreed with the 

proposal to disapprove the SIP revision 

request. IDEM submitted its comments 

on April 18, 2013. ArcelorMittal 

submitted its comments on April 19, 

2013. Their comments are addressed 

below. 

Comment: The flare limit represents 

an inequity in the state’s treatment of 

blast furnace gas flares; a similar facility 

nearby does not have SO2 limits on its 

functionally identical flares. The limits 

for Lake County, Indiana, were 

established after the limits for Porter 

County, where ArcelorMittal is located. 

Emission inventories and modeling 

parameters had improved, and through 

extensive consultation with EPA, it was 

determined to be unnecessary to 

establish SO2 emission limits specific to 

the flares for similar facilities in Lake 

County (i.e. U.S. Steel Gary Works). 

IDEM was able to establish SIP limits for 

sources such as U.S. Steel Gary Works 

which did not include SO2 limits on the 

flares. EPA approved those limits. There 

is no material reason for ArcelorMittal’s 

blast furnace gas flares in Porter County 

to be treated different from the blast 

furnace gas flares operated by U.S. Steel 

in Lake County. It would be arbitrary for 

EPA to disapprove the Porter County 

SIP revision to remove blast furnace gas 

flare limits as unnecessary and 

redundant limits after approving the 

2005 Lake County SO2 SIP that did not 

include blast furnace gas flare limits 

because they were unnecessary and 

redundant. IDEM’s attempt to remove 

this arbitrary difference between 

neighboring counties should be 

considered an appropriate correction to 

a historic error and approved. This SIP 

revision would harmonize the Lake and 

Porter County treatment of flares 

combusting excess blast furnace gas. 

Response: Indiana’s December 10, 

2009, submission did not demonstrate 

that ArcelorMittal’s revised SO2 SIP 

would continue to protect the SO2

NAAQS or meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the SIP 

revision cannot be approved. Emission 

limits, or the lack thereof, at other 

facilities are not relevant to this 

demonstration. The fact that SO2 SIPs 

have been approved without the need 

for SO2 limits on certain flares is not in 

itself a justification for removing SO2

limits on flares from other sources in the 

absence of a showing that the removal 

will not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Comment: This should not be 

considered a matter of backsliding or 

relaxation of the SIP, but a technical 

correction that is necessary to establish 

consistency. The limit should have been 

excluded from the start; therefore, this 

corrective action has no impact on the 

approved SIP or the modeling 

conducted to support it. 

Response: The state established 

ArcelorMittal’s flare limit in the SIP as 

part of its strategy to attain and maintain 

the SO2 NAAQS in Porter County. The 

SIP was approved by EPA in 1989 and 

has remained in effect. CAA section 

110(l) does not provide an exception for 

‘‘technical corrections.’’ Even if it did, it 

would not be appropriate to treat the 

state’s December 10, 2009, SIP revision 

request as a technical correction because 

it can be expected to affect air quality 

and because the state has not provided 

a demonstration that in 1989 it did not 

intend to establish an SO2 limit 

applicable to the blast furnace flare now 

operated by ArcelorMittal. Likewise, to 

the extent that the commenter is 

suggesting the SIP provision was 

approved in error and should be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78722 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

corrected pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(6), EPA notes that the state has 

not provided a basis for concluding that 

the approval of this provision in 1989 

was an error. In addition, EPA does not 

believe that emission limit relaxations 

can be justified on the basis of 

establishing consistency without also 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(l). Therefore, the proposed 

SIP revision’s effects on the existing SIP 

and on the state’s maintenance of the 

NAAQS must be evaluated in 

accordance with CAA section 110(l). 

Comment: IDEM and ArcelorMittal 

were led in 2007–2009 to believe that 

the flare limit removal would be 

approvable. IDEM and ArcelorMittal 

received no information to the contrary 

until 2012. EPA was unwilling to 

establish fruitful dialogue with the state 

prior to proposing disapproval. In its 

proposed disapproval, EPA did not cite 

or recognize the wealth of information 

provided to supplement the SIP 

revision. 

Response: EPA’s concerns with this 

SIP revision did not arise until EPA 

received and began review of Indiana’s 

December 10, 2009, SIP submittal. 

Following a thorough review of the 

submittal and additional information 

subsequently provided by Indiana, EPA 

concluded that the submittal did not 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(l). EPA regularly communicated the 

progress of EPA’s review of the 

submittal during monthly conference 

calls with IDEM and offered 

opportunities for further dialogue, 

which is documented in call summaries 

prepared by IDEM. 

As early as January 2010, EPA 

identified potential issues with this SIP 

revision request. EPA acknowledges that 

IDEM and ArcelorMittal provided EPA 

with additional information in response 

to its questions, which EPA carefully 

considered. However, the state’s 

submittal, including supplemental 

information, did not demonstrate that 

the proposed SIP revision would satisfy 

CAA section 110(l). IDEM’s monthly 

call summaries indicate that EPA had 

begun working on a disapproval in 

January 2012, after expressing 

continuing concerns in September 2011. 

EPA formally communicated the 

deficiencies of the revision in the March 

20, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking 

(78 FR 17157). EPA’s proposal was 

based on an evaluation of the state’s 

official submittal using the applicable 

requirements of the CAA, related 

regulations and guidance. 

Comment: The flares should not have 

a limit, especially a mass limit (pounds 

per hour), because the flare needs to be 

available for full usage to maintain 

operational safety. Additionally, a flare 

limit presents a major hardship for 

compliance testing and enforcement. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

ArcelorMittal flare must be allowed to 

operate as necessary for operational 

safety and proper disposal of waste 

gases. EPA also agrees that direct 

compliance testing of flare emissions 

can be difficult. ArcelorMittal’s existing 

flare emission limit would not limit the 

flare’s actual usage while the blast 

furnace gas generated by the facility 

continued to meet the flare emission 

limit. Deleting the flare limit, however, 

has additional consequences for the SIP 

which Indiana did not adequately 

address in its SIP revision request. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

the Montana Sulphur case which EPA 

cited does not apply to this SIP revision 

because Indiana’s SIP includes limits on 

all the emissions from blast furnace gas 

combustion that were used in the 

modeling to demonstrate attainment. 

The flares were not attributed any mass 

emissions in the modeling 

demonstration or the SIP. The Montana 

Sulphur case involved a state’s decision 

to include flares in the modeling 

demonstration but not include 

corresponding emission limits in the 

SIP rule. 

Response: The Montana Sulphur case 

affirms that flares are not exempt from 

having SIP emission limits, particularly 

where flare emissions were quantified 

in an attainment demonstration that 

assumed flare emissions would occur at 

a certain level. Indiana has submitted 

information to EPA indicating that the 

blast furnace flare was included in the 

original modeled attainment 

demonstration for the Porter County SO2

SIP, with its SO2 emissions calculated 

from blast furnace gas with a sulfur 

content of 0.07 pounds SO2 per million 

British Thermal Units (lb/mmBtu). 

Allowing higher-sulfur blast furnace gas 

would affect SO2 emissions at several 

emission points, including the flare, 

which could affect the adequacy of the 

prior modeled attainment 

demonstration, which relied upon the 

use of blast furnace gas with a sulfur 

content of 0.07 lb/mmBtu. Therefore, it 

is reasonable for the SIP to require the 

flare and the other sources using blast 

furnace gas to meet that emission rate or 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable emission limits based on that 

emission rate. Indiana has not provided 

a demonstration which fully addresses 

the effect on the attainment 

demonstration of relaxing the SIP 

requirements to allow the facility to 

generate, use, and flare higher-sulfur 

blast furnace gas. Likewise, in the SIP 

disapproval that was the subject of the 

Montana Sulphur case, the state’s 

attainment demonstration had assumed 

SO2 emissions from flares would occur 

at a certain rate, but had not shown in 

its enforceable SIP emissions limits how 

the assumed emissions would be 

achieved. It is true that EPA has not 

required all flares in all SO2 SIPs to be 

subjected to emission limits. But where 

an attainment demonstration relies 

upon SO2 emissions to occur at certain 

levels, including those from flares, the 

SIP must contain adequate emission 

limits to support the demonstration. The 

problem both in Montana Sulphur and 

here was that the attainment 

demonstration submitted by the state 

could not be so supported. (The blast 

furnace flare limit helped support 

Indiana’s demonstration for the 

ArcelorMittal facility when the SO2 SIP 

was approved in 1989.) Consequently, 

EPA’s disapproval of the proposed SIP 

relaxation is fully consistent with the 

Court’s reasoning in the Montana 

Sulphur case and with EPA’s SIP 

disapproval action that was the subject 

of that case. 

Comment: The flare SO2 limit is in 

units of lb/mmBtu. This is not a mass 

limit, which would be given as pounds 

of SO2 per hour (lb/hr). Therefore the 

form of the limit is not designed to be 

protective of the NAAQS. Only the mass 

based lb/hr limits are relevant to 

ensuring SO2 NAAQS attainment in the 

SIP. The 0.07 lb/mmBtu SO2 emission 

rate is a factor that is no longer 

necessary or relevant after the lb/hr 

limits were established and included in 

the SIP. Exclusion of this limit is no less 

protective than the current SIP limit. 

Response: Emission limits given in 

units of lb/mmBtu are common in SO2

SIPs. By directly limiting the sulfur 

content of the fuels combusted in a 

given unit or facility, this type of limit 

allows flexibility of unit operations. 

When the individual units are modeled 

at their maximum heat input rates (in 

units of million British Thermal Units 

per hour), assuming fuel at the lb/

mmBtu limit, the SIP can be shown to 

protect the NAAQS for any actual heat 

input rate, including continual 

maximum operations, with compliant 

fuel. The removal of a lb/mmBtu 

emission limit would enable the 

burning of a higher-sulfur fuel, which 

could result in SO2 concentrations in 

excess of the NAAQS and adversely 

affect public health. 

Comment: Given the existing flare SIP 

limit of 0.07 lb/mmBtu, an emission rate 

of 8.9 lb/hr could be assumed for the 

flare, for modeling purposes. Over a 

year of continuous operation, this 

would total less than 39 tons per year, 

which is below the Significant Emission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 78723 

Rate for SO2 (40 tons per year). Actual 

emissions would be lower, because 

flares operate intermittently. Since the 

facility is in an attainment area, the flare 

would normally be excluded from 

modeling because it was considered de 

minimis. Recent EPA guidance suggests 

that intermittent sources can be 

excluded from modeling. 

Response: The commenter’s 

statements regarding the relative 

importance of the flare’s SO2 emissions 

do not eliminate the need for a CAA 

section 110(l) demonstration addressing 

the full effects of the proposed SIP 

revision. The comment references the 

flare’s total annual emissions while in 

compliance with the current SO2

emission limit, but it does not consider 

the increase in annual SO2 emissions 

which the proposed SIP revision would 

allow. In comparing the flare’s total 

annual emissions to the Significant 

Emission Rate, the commenter appears 

to be referencing New Source Review/ 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

program requirements which are not 

relevant to this SIP action. The 

designation of an area as attainment of 

the NAAQS does not automatically 

exempt emission sources from inclusion 

in SIP attainment demonstrations. It is 

not clear that ArcelorMittal’s blast 

furnace flare would qualify as an 

intermittent source under EPA’s March 

1, 2011, memorandum Additional 

Clarification Regarding Application of 

Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 

1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (which is what EPA 

assumes the commenter is referencing), 

or that it would be appropriate to 

disregard the flare’s emissions in a SIP 

modeling analysis per this 

memorandum, and the state did not 

provide an analysis justifying such an 

approach within a modeled 

demonstration for the 1-hour SO2

standard. 

Comment: The pressure surge events 

that concern EPA are rare and 

unexpected events that cannot be 

quantified. The allowable SO2 emission 

rates are sufficiently conservative to 

account for all such surges within the 

current allowable emissions inventory. 

Therefore, the commenter disagrees 

with EPA’s assertion that the SIP 

revision would enable an increase in 

allowable SO2 emissions. 

Response: EPA referenced pressure 

surges in the March 20, 2013, notice of 

proposed rulemaking because the 

documentation provided by the state 

indicated that the blast furnace flare gas 

generation or distribution systems were 

known to experience pressure surge 

events. However, the state’s declarations 

regarding flare usage and worst-case 

facility operations did not address these 

events. We acknowledge the 

commenter’s additional assurances 

regarding the frequency and magnitude 

of pressure surges. As discussed above, 

EPA is not solely concerned with 

pressure surge events, but also with the 

effect on air quality of removing the 

blast furnace flare limit from the SIP. 

Comment: The commenter declared a 

strong economic incentive to use this 

gas as fuel, flaring as little of it as 

possible. 

Response: EPA understands that it is 

ArcelorMittal’s intent to use its blast 

furnace gas as fuel rather than flaring it, 

thus minimizing flare emissions. 

However, the company has 

acknowledged the need to use the flare 

for the safe operation of the blast 

furnace gas operating system, regardless 

of the economic incentives to do 

otherwise. Whether the flare is used 

frequently or not, the full effect of 

removing the flare’s emission limit must 

be addressed. The state did not provide 

a CAA section 110(l) demonstration 

which adequately addressed the effect 

of the proposed SIP revision on air 

quality, taking into consideration the 

facility’s ability to continue using all of 

its generated gases as fuel and the lack 

of a sulfur limit on blast furnace gas. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the amount of process gas generation is 

limited by enforceable restrictions. The 

facility’s Part 70 operating permit places 

a limit on the amount of hot metal that 

can be produced in the blast furnace, 

which effectively limits the amount of 

blast furnace gas that can be produced 

by the facility. The coke oven batteries 

have enforceable SIP limits on the 

amount of coke oven gas that can be 

produced. The commenter said that the 

maximum amount of blast furnace gas 

and coke oven gas that can be generated 

within these restrictions can be 

consumed in the existing combustion 

units when operated at maximum 

capacity. When IDEM modeled the 

allowable emissions from the facility, 

combustion of all the blast furnace gas 

and coke oven gas is properly included 

and there is no additional blast furnace 

gas to attribute to the flare. 

Response: The commenter referred to 

hot metal production limits within the 

facility’s Part 70 permit which were 

originally derived from a construction 

permit and are therefore permanent. The 

commenter stated that these restrictions 

would affect blast furnace gas 

production, but did not provide 

calculations or documentation which 

identified the maximum amount of blast 

furnace gas that can be generated while 

in compliance with the hot metal 

limitation in the facility’s Part 70 

permit. The total coke oven gas 

production allowable under the cited 

coke battery limits was not given. The 

SIP includes SO2 emission limits for 

various fuel combustion units at 

ArcelorMittal which can use blast 

furnace gas and coke oven gas, such as 

the blast furnace stoves, coke battery 

underfire, slab mill soaking pits, and 

power station boilers, which are referred 

to in this document as ‘‘the combustion 

units.’’ No calculations were provided 

to show the amount of process gas by 

volume which can be burned in the 

combustion units at their maximum 

heat input capacities, for comparison 

with maximum gas production in 

support of the commenter’s assertion. 

The state’s submittal did not address the 

amounts of each fuel gas which 

corresponded to the emission rates used 

in the dispersion modeling analysis 

which the state cited in support of the 

SIP revision. Therefore, EPA does not 

have sufficient information to confirm 

that the maximum amount of blast 

furnace gas and coke oven gas which 

can be generated within the facility’s 

enforceable production restrictions can 

be entirely consumed in the combustion 

units when operated in compliance with 

the SO2 SIP emission limits. 

Comment: The sum of allowable SO2

lb/hr rates for all combustion units 

burning process gases at the 

ArcelorMittal facility is 8,692 lb/hr. 

This rate is more than double the 

maximum SO2 emissions from 

combustion of all the process gases that 

can be produced at the facility within 

current enforceable restrictions on hot 

metal and coke oven gas. The 

commenter provided calculations to 

support this assertion. 

Response: The calculations which the 

commenter provided appear to be based 

on actual annual facility gas production 

data, rather than a calculated maximum 

value which would be allowed by the 

enforceable limits, as suggested by the 

comment. The comment letter contains 

a table of calculated SO2 emissions from 

blast furnace gas and coke oven gas. 

This table is identical to a table in 

ArcelorMittal’s June 29, 2011, letter to 

IDEM. In that letter, the blast furnace 

gas production data was identified as 

the facility’s highest recent annual 

production amount (2004), and the coke 

oven gas was identified as the highest 

recent annual production amount 

(2009). EPA has already considered this 

information. The June 29, 2011, letter 

did not indicate that the 2004 blast 

furnace gas production totals 

represented the maximum amount of 

process gas that could be generated 

while in compliance with the hot metal 

limit in the Part 70 permit. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78724 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

comment on EPA’s March 20, 2013, 

proposed disapproval does not provide 

additional calculations or 

documentation to identify the true 

maximum blast furnace gas production 

which would be possible within the hot 

metal limitation in ArcelorMittal’s Part 

70 permit, or to demonstrate that the 

2004 actual production value is equal to 

the maximum possible production rate. 

EPA therefore concludes that the 

comment continues to cite actual 

production data from 2004, which is not 

sufficient to prove that the existing SIP 

limits will continue to accommodate all 

of the gas ArcelorMittal can generate, 

when the blast furnace gas sulfur 

content is no longer restricted by the 

flare limit. 

Comment: Since the worst-case 

scenario attributes no blast furnace gas 

to the flare, a change in the actual 

emissions at the flare is irrelevant for 

purposes of attainment and 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. Any 

increase in emissions at the flare reflects 

a corresponding reduction from another 

source already modeled and must be 

considered a departure from the worstcase scenario that must be modeled for 

the attainment demonstration. This is 

how EPA endorsed modeling similar 

sources in Lake County. 

Response: A change in actual SO2

emissions at the flare is only irrelevant 

if the SIP truly covers all possible blast 

furnace gas production and sulfur 

content increases which would be 

allowed under the revised SIP. The 

range of potential blast furnace gas 

sulfur content at this facility has not 

been established. When blast furnace 

gas is no longer assured of meeting 0.07 

lb/mmBtu, the new worst-case operating 

scenario may differ from the scenario 

which was previously modeled to 

support the original SO2 SIP for this 

facility. The state has not demonstrated 

that the SIP fully covers new potential 

operating scenarios which could occur. 

Comment: One of the commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s statement that the 

limitations on the sulfur content of the 

process gases need to be addressed in 

the SIP. The comment stated that the 

purpose of the SIP is to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS and ensure 

reasonable further progress, and for this 

purpose, IDEM established the SO2 lb/ 

hr emission limits for all fuel burning 

sources that use process gases when 

operating at their full utilization rates. 

These rates were modeled and 

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS was 

demonstrated at the time of adoption of 

326 IAC 7–4–14 as noted in 53 FR 34314 

(September 6, 1988). The modeled rates 

were included as emission limits in the 

SIP. The conservative modeled scenario 

provides an adequate margin of safety to 

ensure than the attainment 

demonstration remains valid and 

protective of the NAAQS. The modeled 

emission rates for the combustion units 

remain unchanged and are not affected 

by the SIP revision. Therefore, the 

revision does not interfere with 

protection of the NAAQS. The other 

commenter added the statement that the 

limits established to support 

compliance of the NAAQS are 

applicable regardless of the sulfur 

content in the fuel used. 

Response: The SIP revision request 

removes an emission limit which is 

directly linked to the sulfur content of 

the blast furnace gas generated and used 

at ArcelorMittal. The sulfur content of 

the blast furnace gas is directly linked 

to the facility’s compliance with its 

remaining lb/hr SIP emission limits, 

because the emissions from many of 

those units correspond directly to the 

sulfur content of the blast furnace gas 

and coke oven gas which are allowed to 

be used together as fuel. The state has 

not demonstrated how ArcelorMittal 

will continue to meet and demonstrate 

continuous compliance with these 

limits if blast furnace gas is no longer 

assured of meeting a sulfur content of 

0.07 lb/mmBtu. The state has not 

limited or quantified the expected 

increase in blast furnace gas sulfur 

content under the revised SIP. The 

existing SIP does not require the sulfur 

content of blast furnace gas to be 

analyzed for compliance purposes. The 

facility’s sampling and analysis plan 

under 326 IAC 7–4–14(1)(F) would 

allow ArcelorMittal to calculate its 

combustion unit SO2 emissions by 

assuming that its blast furnace gas sulfur 

content is 0.07 lb/mmBtu, even though 

the SIP would no longer require the gas 

to meet that limit at any combustion 

unit. The state has not shown that 0.07 

lb/mmBtu will continue to be a 

representative SO2 emission factor for 

ArcelorMittal’s blast furnace gas. The 

compliance requirements for the 

combustion units have not been revised. 

The state has not provided a basis for 

EPA to conclude that the revised SIP 

will have no effect on the operation of 

the combustion sources or on the 

facility’s need to flare excess fuel gases. 

Therefore, the state has not 

demonstrated that relaxing 

ArcelorMittal’s SIP will satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 110(l). 

Comment: The commenter disagrees 

that actual flaring data is needed for the 

SIP revision. Actual flaring events 

reflect something other than the worstcase operating scenario for blast furnace 

gas combustion and are therefore 

irrelevant for establishing attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Response: As the commenter states, 

actual flaring data is not in itself a 

requirement for SIP approval. The 

state’s arguments for removing the flare 

limit hinge on the concept that the 

facility intends to and is able to use all 

of its process gas in its combustion 

units, minimizing flare usage, and that 

flare usage events correspond to overall 

facility emissions below the SIP 

allowable levels. EPA’s proposed 

disapproval simply pointed out that no 

historical flaring data was provided. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is disapproving Indiana’s 

December 10, 2009, submittal requesting 

a SIP revision to remove the SO2

emission limit on the blast furnace gas 

flare at ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor in 

Porter County. The commenters on the 

proposed disapproval contend primarily 

that the facility’s blast furnace gas flare 

does not need an emission limit in order 

to maintain the NAAQS. The comments 

did not demonstrate that the revised SIP 

satisfactorily addresses the results of 

removing an emission limit that had had 

the effect of requiring the facility to 

maintain a specific sulfur content in its 

blast furnace gas. Nor did other 

information in the record provide a 

basis to conclude that this SIP revision 

satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 110(l). Accordingly, EPA is 

disapproving the submittal. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This site-specific action is exempt 

from review under Executive Orders 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely disapproves state 

law as not meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, I certify that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 78725 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain an 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This SIP 

disapproval under section 110 will not 

in-and-of itself create any new rules but 

simply disapproves a state rule 

proposed for inclusion into the SIP. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

disapproves certain state requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP under section 

110 and will not in-and-of itself create 

any new requirements. Accordingly, it 

does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 25, 2014. 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: December 12, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52–APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 52.781 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 52.781 Rules and regulations. 

* * * * * 

(h) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving 

the December 10, 2009 submittal of 326 

IAC 7–4–14 as a revision to the Indiana 

SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30885 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES